The Flat Earth Society

Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Debate => Topic started by: pitdroidtech on September 17, 2011, 11:25:34 AM

Title: Photographic Evidence of Curvature Beyond the Visible Horizon
Post by: pitdroidtech on September 17, 2011, 11:25:34 AM
This series of pictures shows ships between 15-25km from the observer, photographed from both sea level and 12m altitude.  Also included are pictures of the distant shoreline of the island that lies across the bay, from both sea level and 12m altitude.  There are examples of photos taken at magnifications of 1:1, 8:1 and 28:1. 

In these series are shown;

1. ships at 8 times magnification viewed from different elevations, the higher elevations revealing more of the hulls than are visible at sea level (0m)
2. Island coastland viewed at 8x magnification from different elevations, with more of the lower view of the coast visible from higher elevations
3. 28x telescope images of selected views of both coastal land and ships showing that higher magnification does not increase the proportion of the subject viewable but that higher elevation does increase the proportion of the subject that is visible.

Note: Some images have been reduced in size to make comparisons easier, the full view is available by cliking the image.


Ship 1, 1x mag. 12m alt. (enlarged to show detail)
(http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6206/6155740068_63689207ed_o.jpg) (http://www.flickr.com/photos/pitdroidtech/6155740068/)
Ships Below the Horizon (http://www.flickr.com/photos/pitdroidtech/6155740068/) by max_wedge (http://www.flickr.com/people/pitdroidtech/), on Flickr

Ship 1, 8x mag. 12m alt.
(http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6080/6155195173_dc4c9b9719_o.jpg) (http://www.flickr.com/photos/pitdroidtech/6155195173/)
Ships Below the Horizon (http://www.flickr.com/photos/pitdroidtech/6155195173/) by max_wedge (http://www.flickr.com/people/pitdroidtech/), on Flickr

Ship 1, 8x mag. 12m alt.
(http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6155/6155738378_71f20689ea_o.jpg) (http://www.flickr.com/photos/pitdroidtech/6155738378/)
Ships Below the Horizon (http://www.flickr.com/photos/pitdroidtech/6155738378/) by max_wedge (http://www.flickr.com/people/pitdroidtech/), on Flickr

Ship 1, 8x mag. 0m alt.
(http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6068/6155193283_8a080a6256_o.jpg) (http://www.flickr.com/photos/pitdroidtech/6155193283/)
Ships Below the Horizon (http://www.flickr.com/photos/pitdroidtech/6155193283/) by max_wedge (http://www.flickr.com/people/pitdroidtech/), on Flickr

Ship 1, 8x mag. 0m alt.  (note ship 2 behind ship1. The hull of ship 2 is not even visible)
(http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6194/6155193181_95d49890fa_o.jpg) (http://www.flickr.com/photos/pitdroidtech/6155193181/)
Ships Below the Horizon (http://www.flickr.com/photos/pitdroidtech/6155193181/) by max_wedge (http://www.flickr.com/people/pitdroidtech/), on Flickr

Ship 2, 8x mag. 0m alt.
(http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6207/6155192949_68fa85794e_o.jpg) (http://www.flickr.com/photos/pitdroidtech/6155192949/)
Ships Below the Horizon (http://www.flickr.com/photos/pitdroidtech/6155192949/) by max_wedge (http://www.flickr.com/people/pitdroidtech/), on Flickr

Ship 2, 8x mag. 12m alt.
(http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6164/6155192737_9c088a5df7_o.jpg) (http://www.flickr.com/photos/pitdroidtech/6155192737/)
Ships Below the Horizon (http://www.flickr.com/photos/pitdroidtech/6155192737/) by max_wedge (http://www.flickr.com/people/pitdroidtech/), on Flickr

Ship 3, 8x mag. 0m alt.
(http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6179/6155737584_cfc0fb517a_o.jpg) (http://www.flickr.com/photos/pitdroidtech/6155737584/)
Ships Below the Horizon (http://www.flickr.com/photos/pitdroidtech/6155737584/) by max_wedge (http://www.flickr.com/people/pitdroidtech/), on Flickr

Ship 3, 28x mag. 0m alt. 
(http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6086/6155192491_a10315b3ca_b.jpg) (http://www.flickr.com/photos/pitdroidtech/6155192491/)
Ships Below the Horizon (http://www.flickr.com/photos/pitdroidtech/6155192491/) by max_wedge (http://www.flickr.com/people/pitdroidtech/), on Flickr

Ship 2, 28x mag. 1.5m alt.
(http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6173/6155192083_0e22ed6310_z.jpg) (http://www.flickr.com/photos/pitdroidtech/6155192083/)
Ships Below the Horizon (http://www.flickr.com/photos/pitdroidtech/6155192083/) by max_wedge (http://www.flickr.com/people/pitdroidtech/), on Flickr

Ship 2, 28x mag. 12m alt.
(http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6188/6155736684_3a8a75f3e4_z.jpg) (http://www.flickr.com/photos/pitdroidtech/6155736684/)
Ships Below the Horizon (http://www.flickr.com/photos/pitdroidtech/6155736684/) by max_wedge (http://www.flickr.com/people/pitdroidtech/), on Flickr

Dune, 8x mag. 0m alt.
(http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6086/6155191443_55b19f7652_z.jpg) (http://www.flickr.com/photos/pitdroidtech/6155191443/)
Ships Below the Horizon (http://www.flickr.com/photos/pitdroidtech/6155191443/) by max_wedge (http://www.flickr.com/people/pitdroidtech/), on Flickr

Dune, 8x mag. 12m alt.
(http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6064/6155736064_8ef67bd611_z.jpg) (http://www.flickr.com/photos/pitdroidtech/6155736064/)
Ships Below the Horizon (http://www.flickr.com/photos/pitdroidtech/6155736064/) by max_wedge (http://www.flickr.com/people/pitdroidtech/), on Flickr

Houses on hill, 8x mag. 0m alt.
(http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6162/6155735620_e4a5f4bb1d_z.jpg) (http://www.flickr.com/photos/pitdroidtech/6155735620/)
Ships Below the Horizon (http://www.flickr.com/photos/pitdroidtech/6155735620/) by max_wedge (http://www.flickr.com/people/pitdroidtech/), on Flickr

Houses on hill, 28x mag. 1.5m alt.
(http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6183/6155190187_f5bdb35481_z.jpg) (http://www.flickr.com/photos/pitdroidtech/6155190187/)
Ships Below the Horizon (http://www.flickr.com/photos/pitdroidtech/6155190187/) by max_wedge (http://www.flickr.com/people/pitdroidtech/), on Flickr

Houses on hill, 8x mag. 12m alt.
(http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6209/6155188787_e23985d92d_z.jpg) (http://www.flickr.com/photos/pitdroidtech/6155188787/)
Ships Below the Horizon (http://www.flickr.com/photos/pitdroidtech/6155188787/) by max_wedge (http://www.flickr.com/people/pitdroidtech/), on Flickr

Apartments, 8x mag 1.5m alt
(http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6065/6155733016_d8f8f07b41_z.jpg) (http://www.flickr.com/photos/pitdroidtech/6155733016/)
Ships Below the Horizon (http://www.flickr.com/photos/pitdroidtech/6155733016/) by max_wedge (http://www.flickr.com/people/pitdroidtech/), on Flickr

Apartments, 28x mag. 1.5m alt.
(http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6158/6155187611_3322d6da89_z.jpg) (http://www.flickr.com/photos/pitdroidtech/6155187611/)
Ships Below the Horizon (http://www.flickr.com/photos/pitdroidtech/6155187611/) by max_wedge (http://www.flickr.com/people/pitdroidtech/), on Flickr
Title: Re: Photographic Evidence of Curvature Beyond the Visible Horizon
Post by: Thork on September 17, 2011, 11:59:09 AM
Only a few weeks ago someone posted this as proof of curvature

(http://www.wired.com/images_blogs/wiredscience/2011/06/untitled_11.jpg)

However it should be obvious to anyone with half a brain that the earth does not curve by more than a foot to hide the bodies of people just 20 yards away. What has happened is a big wave is covering them. In your pictures, waves are covering the boat in exactly the same way. Greater distance, same effect.

My example also serves to prove how none of you ever use the search function.
Title: Re: Photographic Evidence of Curvature Beyond the Visible Horizon
Post by: momentia on September 17, 2011, 12:34:26 PM
Some of the best pictures I've seen demonstrating curvature.

And Thork, waves are NOT the answer. You can see distant waves even in the low altitude pictures. I drew circles around them so you can't ignore them.

(http://i52.tinypic.com/bdk585.png)
(http://i52.tinypic.com/nb3cis.png)

These pictures were taken from above the wave height, and most of their hulls are missing.
Title: Re: Photographic Evidence of Curvature Beyond the Visible Horizon
Post by: Thork on September 17, 2011, 12:51:57 PM
You will notice from the picture I posted the water looks almost flat in the upper one. The power of even small waves to mask low objects is powerful. But your pictures are demonstrating the exact same thing. You are just hi-lighting imperfections in the general swell. It is the swell that covers the bottom of the boat.
Title: Re: Photographic Evidence of Curvature Beyond the Visible Horizon
Post by: NTheGreat on September 17, 2011, 01:00:13 PM
You will notice from the picture I posted the water looks almost flat in the upper one. The power of even small waves to mask low objects is powerful. But your pictures are demonstrating the exact same thing. You are just hi-lighting imperfections in the general swell. It is the swell that covers the bottom of the boat.

Do you have any evidence that wave consistently rise high enough and frequently enough to mask the lower section of a boat while appearing as a almost perfectly flat surface? Or it it just 'I think this happens this way because it's the only way to explain what we see assuming a flat Earth'?
Title: Re: Photographic Evidence of Curvature Beyond the Visible Horizon
Post by: General Disarray on September 17, 2011, 01:01:56 PM
Or it it just 'I think this happens this way because it's the only way to explain what we see assuming a flat Earth'?

Ah, I see you've met Thork.
Title: Re: Photographic Evidence of Curvature Beyond the Visible Horizon
Post by: Thork on September 17, 2011, 01:08:17 PM
Wave effects and ships on the horizon is all explained in ENaG.
Really? Are we going to do this thread with the same pictures again?

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=49605.msg1236552#msg1236552
Note by the OP again! Considering the size of the posts, this is tantamount to spam.

Typing 'ship horizon' into the search churns out 1060 posts.
Lurk moar.

Or it it just 'I think this happens this way because it's the only way to explain what we see assuming a flat Earth'?

Ah, I see you've met Thork.
You need to crawl back under your bridge and keep the low-content posts out of the upper fora.
Title: Re: Photographic Evidence of Curvature Beyond the Visible Horizon
Post by: Ski on September 17, 2011, 01:09:02 PM
Thanks for posting these. I will try to take some time tomorrow to look at them in detail. Of course, raising the observers altitude increases the visible horizon. This has never (to my knowledge) been contested by anyone here. I'm mostly interested in comparing pictures taken at the same time/altitude but with different magnification. Coastal pictures might work best for this purpose. I'm headed out the door for the moment, but I really do want to look at these in depth.
Quickly glancing, the pictures you have labeled "Houses on hill" taken at 0 alt at different magnifications appear to demonstrate the effect of "hull" restoration by magnification. An entire building in centre frame appears to be restored underneath the triangular form of another building. This building is hiding below the visual horizon in the first (x8mag) picture, but appears in the second (x28) photo. This is impossible if the land was hidden behind a hill of water as globularism suggests. Perhaps you or someone else can look at this more closely while I am out, or I will be happy to look at them on the morrow.
Thanks again for the photos; I am always appreciative of those (rare) individuals who actually invest their time for such experimentation-- especially as my own locale is several hundred miles from an ocean.
Title: Re: Photographic Evidence of Curvature Beyond the Visible Horizon
Post by: Nolhekh on September 17, 2011, 04:31:36 PM
Thanks for posting these. I will try to take some time tomorrow to look at them in detail. Of course, raising the observers altitude increases the visible horizon. This has never (to my knowledge) been contested by anyone here.
I contest this.  The true horizon and the mathematical horizon are slightly different.  The mathematical horizon represents precisely 0 degree declination and has no definable distance.  The true horizon for a round earth has slightly negative declination due to curvature, and has a distance dependant on altitude and radius of the earth.  For a flat earth, the true horizon's distance is dependant only on the distance to the edge of the sun-lit portion of the earth.  As this is much further than the visible edge of a round earth, its declination would be much smaller.

Quote
Quickly glancing, the pictures you have labeled "Houses on hill" taken at 0 alt at different magnifications appear to demonstrate the effect of "hull" restoration by magnification. An entire building in centre frame appears to be restored underneath the triangular form of another building. This building is hiding below the visual horizon in the first (x8mag) picture, but appears in the second (x28) photo. This is impossible if the land was hidden behind a hill of water as globularism suggests.

It could also be the atmospheric refraction phenomenon that globularists claim invalidated the Bedford experiment.  But I hope you notice the entire section of trees that shows up when altitude is increased in the x8 mag pictures.
Title: Re: Photographic Evidence of Curvature Beyond the Visible Horizon
Post by: Nolhekh on September 17, 2011, 04:46:13 PM
You will notice from the picture I posted the water looks almost flat in the upper one. The power of even small waves to mask low objects is powerful. But your pictures are demonstrating the exact same thing. You are just hi-lighting imperfections in the general swell. It is the swell that covers the bottom of the boat.

This could only be true if the pictures were taken below wave height, which is not the case.  I doubt momentia would bring his multi-hundred dollar telescope and camera under a swell just to fake out a society which he probably believes consists of mere trolls.
Title: Re: Photographic Evidence of Curvature Beyond the Visible Horizon
Post by: three-dimensional-world on September 17, 2011, 05:27:01 PM
can you estimate the radius of the earth from these observations?
Title: Re: Photographic Evidence of Curvature Beyond the Visible Horizon
Post by: Nolhekh on September 17, 2011, 05:32:40 PM
can you estimate the radius of the earth from these observations?

No declination or distance measurements were taken, so no.
Title: Re: Photographic Evidence of Curvature Beyond the Visible Horizon
Post by: pitdroidtech on September 17, 2011, 06:25:35 PM
You will notice from the picture I posted the water looks almost flat in the upper one. The power of even small waves to mask low objects is powerful. But your pictures are demonstrating the exact same thing. You are just hi-lighting imperfections in the general swell. It is the swell that covers the bottom of the boat.
I would be insulted by this if I didn't know you were a troll.  ::)  For the benefit of anyone befuddled by your statement:
1. The water in the pic you posted does not look flat, there is a very obvious swell.
2. A swell comes and goes, it certainly doesn't rise and fall in time to my clambering up and down a cliff. 
Title: Re: Photographic Evidence of Curvature Beyond the Visible Horizon
Post by: pitdroidtech on September 17, 2011, 06:39:15 PM
Wave effects and ships on the horizon is all explained in ENaG.
Really? Are we going to do this thread with the same pictures again?
The non-restoration of the hull by telescope invalidates ENaG perspective.

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=49605.msg1236552#msg1236552
Note by the OP again! Considering the size of the posts, this is tantamount to spam.
Thanks for refencing my earlier work on this expirement.  As you will notice, this thread contributes significantly more information to this topic than has so far been provided.  The work of science relies on many scientists continually repeating the same work to build up a body of evidence.  This experiment is part of that work, and any future post's by me regarding ships and the horizon will be posted here.

Typing 'ship horizon' into the search churns out 1060 posts.
Lurk moar.
I challenge you to find any posts with as comprehensive photographic evidence.  If you do, I will appreciate the addition of the links as further support of my work above. Lurk Moar brother scientist.  (I assume 'Lurk Moar' some kind of scientific salute amongst scientists?)


Title: Re: Photographic Evidence of Curvature Beyond the Visible Horizon
Post by: pitdroidtech on September 17, 2011, 06:48:01 PM
Thanks for posting these. I will try to take some time tomorrow to look at them in detail. Of course, raising the observers altitude increases the visible horizon. This has never (to my knowledge) been contested by anyone here. I'm mostly interested in comparing pictures taken at the same time/altitude but with different magnification. Coastal pictures might work best for this purpose. I'm headed out the door for the moment, but I really do want to look at these in depth.
Quickly glancing, the pictures you have labeled "Houses on hill" taken at 0 alt at different magnifications appear to demonstrate the effect of "hull" restoration by magnification. An entire building in centre frame appears to be restored underneath the triangular form of another building. This building is hiding below the visual horizon in the first (x8mag) picture, but appears in the second (x28) photo. This is impossible if the land was hidden behind a hill of water as globularism suggests. Perhaps you or someone else can look at this more closely while I am out, or I will be happy to look at them on the morrow.
Thanks again for the photos; I am always appreciative of those (rare) individuals who actually invest their time for such experimentation-- especially as my own locale is several hundred miles from an ocean.
Thanks for your ernest commitment to the quest for truth.

Regarding your observation of the "house on the hill":  I'm not exactly sure were you mean, it would be helpful if you were to post a picture showing the exact spot.  However, I will note that 1. Some things do infact disappear when viewed from further away, due to pixelation - as an object gets smaller it appears to disappear even before it has fully shrunk to a dot, since pixelation can blur out objects with the background.  However this doesn't occur in one axis only but across all axis equally given the same angular width or height, and 2nd, there is a small amount of inferior mirage, which is reflected across the line ofthe horizon, obscuring some detail.  If you look closely, you will see that beyond the margins of the mirage, are buildings and landscape features that simply do not appear on the sea level views that appear as plain as day on the elevated view.

Many thanks for your input.
Title: Re: Photographic Evidence of Curvature Beyond the Visible Horizon
Post by: Nolhekh on September 17, 2011, 07:24:22 PM
Regarding your observation of the "house on the hill":  I'm not exactly sure were you mean, it would be helpful if you were to post a picture showing the exact spot. 
In the middle, there is a building that looks like it has a dome on it that shows up in the 28x mag, but disappears in the 8x mag.
Title: Re: Photographic Evidence of Curvature Beyond the Visible Horizon
Post by: Ski on September 17, 2011, 08:00:15 PM
This was highly interesting, and I again thank you for taking the time to perform these experiments. I am sorry it took so long to get back to this, but today was the sabbath and I had (ironically) many things to do. I think it's marvelous that you took the initiative and did not take for granted the "facts" of the matter as you understand them.

I have not touched the ratio of the pictures in any way. I have only cropped and zoomed to aid us.

This is the x8 Mag:
(http://i53.tinypic.com/rvahe1.jpg)

This is the x28 Mag:
(http://i53.tinypic.com/2evqicj.jpg)


This is the view merged to show better the restoration.
(http://i56.tinypic.com/1zv7kus.jpg)

In the 28xMagnification picture, whole buildings appear, as well as part of the coastline, which are wholly absent from the x8 photo. I wish we had a plain picture with no magnification, but I am happy, indeed, that you were willing to provide what you did.
According to globularism these objects are hiding behind a hill of water. Yet as this experiment clearly shows (again), restoration of the image is possible by viewing through a telescope.
Before we introduce the bugaboo of refraction, you took these pictures at roughly the same time and location. If there was to be refraction in the pictures, this would be evident in both images. The light would take the same path from shore to eye regardless of magnification. If the buildings were behind a hill of water at 8xmagnification, they should be behind the hill of water at 28xmagnification as well.
This is confirmation of what Tom and I have been trying to tell people for years, only to be shouted down as quackery by the uninterested masses. I hope people will take an honest look at the results, and give this experiment (and their beliefs to rotundity) the attention it deserves.
Title: Re: Photographic Evidence of Curvature Beyond the Visible Horizon
Post by: squevil on September 18, 2011, 01:42:01 AM
makes interesting viewing thanks to both of you. i wish the last images were clear though, its a shame that the houses in the center dont even follow the same shape as the 28x magnification pictures. what about the others ski that show no changes? is this because there was not enough distance? i wish we could study sharp and a sharper picture. would the results be better using film?
Title: Re: Photographic Evidence of Curvature Beyond the Visible Horizon
Post by: pitdroidtech on September 18, 2011, 03:44:53 AM

In the 28xMagnification picture, whole buildings appear, as well as part of the coastline, which are wholly absent from the x8 photo. I wish we had a plain picture with no magnification, but I am happy, indeed, that you were willing to provide what you did.
According to globularism these objects are hiding behind a hill of water. Yet as this experiment clearly shows (again), restoration of the image is possible by viewing through a telescope.
Before we introduce the bugaboo of refraction, you took these pictures at roughly the same time and location. If there was to be refraction in the pictures, this would be evident in both images. The light would take the same path from shore to eye regardless of magnification. If the buildings were behind a hill of water at 8xmagnification, they should be behind the hill of water at 28xmagnification as well.
This is confirmation of what Tom and I have been trying to tell people for years, only to be shouted down as quackery by the uninterested masses. I hope people will take an honest look at the results, and give this experiment (and their beliefs to rotundity) the attention it deserves.

I appreciate your reasoned response, however refraction does indeed account for this, but in the form of an inferior mirage (as I mentioned in my OP).  Notice in the images (I have used your crops, thank you) I have drawn a white line through the point where the actual image is mirrored by the mirage.  Also, I must embarassingly admit that I made in error my original post; the telescopic images (28x) were taken at about 1-1.5metres above sea level, not actually at sea level. (I have corrected the original post to reflect this).

The refracted image, along with the fact that slightly more of the view is visible in the telescopic shots, is consistant with my findings.  See below for images with white lines drawn through the fold line of the refraction.  When you consider that what appears to be a missing building is in fact simply an upside down mirror image obscuring the waterline.  The black line on the second image shows the height of the white line on the first image ie: the black line representing the 0m view, and white line representing the 1.5m view

0m 8x
(http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6207/6157877899_75e2bccae0.jpg) (http://www.flickr.com/photos/pitdroidtech/6157877899/)
Inferior Mirage (http://www.flickr.com/photos/pitdroidtech/6157877899/) by max_wedge (http://www.flickr.com/people/pitdroidtech/), on Flickr

1.5m 28x
(http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6153/6157877819_d7b011affe.jpg) (http://www.flickr.com/photos/pitdroidtech/6157877819/)
Inferior Mirage (http://www.flickr.com/photos/pitdroidtech/6157877819/) by max_wedge (http://www.flickr.com/people/pitdroidtech/), on Flickr

Also please note, I will gladly do more such experiments, and also hope to do some on a day were there is no mirage evident.  Nevertheless, when all the images are taken together, it's quite clear that more is visible at higher elevations.  Indeed, even if the telescopic view HAD restored part of the view, the non-telescopic elevated view restored FAR MORE of the view:

12m 8x
(http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6173/6158531158_d260e505c4.jpg) (http://www.flickr.com/photos/pitdroidtech/6158531158/)
20110918-003 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/pitdroidtech/6158531158/) by max_wedge (http://www.flickr.com/people/pitdroidtech/), on Flickr

In a Flat Earth Scenario, increased elevation can not restore any part of the image, since there is no hill of curvature to obsure anything in the first place.

As you said, it would be good to have better quality images to work with.  In a sense this is impossible since we are working from pictures of a horizon close to 30km distant.  So to take comparative shots at low magnification, details will of necessity be highly pixellated.  Of course some of the issue comes down to my equipment which could be of higher quality, but at $20,000 for the lens I'd prefer to use for this experiment, that ain't gonna happen!!  Also a higher megepixel camera would help.  Also, a better quality telescope would also improve the quality of the images.

However that said, I believe the results are adequate.  The details while blurry are easy to compare from image to image.
Title: Re: Photographic Evidence of Curvature Beyond the Visible Horizon
Post by: pitdroidtech on September 18, 2011, 04:03:53 AM
makes interesting viewing thanks to both of you. i wish the last images were clear though, its a shame that the houses in the center dont even follow the same shape as the 28x magnification pictures.
This is due to refraction, but also I made a genuine error in reporting the height - see my post in response to Ski.
what about the others ski that show no changes? is this because there was not enough distance? i wish we could study sharp and a sharper picture. would the results be better using film?
The others were actually closer not further than the examples that Ski referenced.  All pictures show a definite revealing of the lower details of the view at higher altitudes.

The results would be better using higher quality glass, but not by much.  The fact of the matter is, taking 8x mag images (let alone the 1x that Ski would like to see) of objects 25km or more distant is not going to yield great results.

To do a comparative study you need to work with the low mag images as well as the high mag images. 

btw, @Ski, I will post more 1x comparisons, but note that I did include one 1x at the start of the thread.
Title: Re: Photographic Evidence of Curvature Beyond the Visible Horizon
Post by: Ski on September 18, 2011, 10:00:20 AM
Hurriedly, I'll type another brief message. I hope to give the subject the time it deserves later.

The refracted image, along with the fact that slightly more of the view is visible in the telescopic shots, is consistant with my findings.  See below for images with white lines drawn through the fold line of the refraction. 

I wholly agree with you, in fact, I had thought about including these lines, but it was already late and I slouched. The problem with your interpretation is that the white line drawn on the inferior mirage represents the true horizon. In an inferior mirage the mirage is mirrored below the horizon. I'm sure we can agree with this.
Again, the hill and buildings thereon are restored by magnification. If everything under the white line is projected below the horizon on water, the white line represents the hill of water that rotundity insists is there. The hill of water should not recede by magnification. I will approach this again later tonight, if you wish, but I think I've demonstrated the point sufficiently for everyone to grasp at the moment.

0m 8x
(http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6207/6157877899_75e2bccae0.jpg) (http://www.flickr.com/photos/pitdroidtech/6157877899/)
Inferior Mirage (http://www.flickr.com/photos/pitdroidtech/6157877899/) by max_wedge (http://www.flickr.com/people/pitdroidtech/), on Flickr

0m 28x
(http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6153/6157877819_d7b011affe.jpg) (http://www.flickr.com/photos/pitdroidtech/6157877819/)
Inferior Mirage (http://www.flickr.com/photos/pitdroidtech/6157877819/) by max_wedge (http://www.flickr.com/people/pitdroidtech/), on Flickr


Quote
  Nevertheless, when all the images are taken together, it's quite clear that more is visible at higher elevations.  Indeed, even if the telescopic view HAD restored part of the view, the non-telescopic elevated view restored FAR MORE of the view:
Of course they do because by raising your elevation you are allowing your eye-line to recede farther before it shrinks. This is covered in ENaG, and I don't have time to post more deeply at the moment.


Quote
In a Flat Earth Scenario, increased elevation can not restore any part of the image, since there is no hill of curvature to obsure anything in the first place.
This is not true, and the misunderstanding is because you are misrepresenting true perspective. A simple observation on a locally level surface (basketball court?) will demonstrate this for you. Place a small coin upright at the edge of he court and place your eye as close to the surface at the other end of the court. You will be unable to discern the entirety of the coin until you raise your eye level, but this has nothing to do with a hill of concrete in between you and the coin, and everything to do with your ability to discern objects at distance.

Quote
Also please note, I will gladly do more such experiments, and also hope to do some on a day were there is no mirage evident.
This would be splendid. Thank you again. I will also address some of the other photos you have taken when I have the time, but this series of pictures showed the effect for markedly than the others.
Title: Re: Photographic Evidence of Curvature Beyond the Visible Horizon
Post by: three-dimensional-world on September 18, 2011, 10:44:22 AM
can you estimate the radius of the earth from these observations?

No declination or distance measurements were taken, so no.

So according to these pictures:


This is a completely unscientific approach.
Title: Re: Photographic Evidence of Curvature Beyond the Visible Horizon
Post by: Nolhekh on September 18, 2011, 10:56:30 AM
can you estimate the radius of the earth from these observations?

No declination or distance measurements were taken, so no.

So according to these pictures:

  • The earth is (roughly) a sphere
  • It's impossible to describe the size of this sphere

This is a completely unscientific approach.

If he had taken some angle measurements for the horizon, we would have a size for the sphere.  He didn't so we don't.

But keep in mind, that with this logic, Ski can't claim this as scientific evidence either, because rowbotham doesn't provide a formula for determining how far objects restore based on altitude.
Title: Re: Photographic Evidence of Curvature Beyond the Visible Horizon
Post by: Nolhekh on September 18, 2011, 11:14:29 AM
Quote
In a Flat Earth Scenario, increased elevation can not restore any part of the image, since there is no hill of curvature to obsure anything in the first place.
This is not true, and the misunderstanding is because you are misrepresenting true perspective. A simple observation on a locally level surface (basketball court?) will demonstrate this for you. Place a small coin upright at the edge of he court and place your eye as close to the surface at the other end of the court. You will be unable to discern the entirety of the coin until you raise your eye level, but this has nothing to do with a hill of concrete in between you and the coin, and everything to do with your ability to discern objects at distance.
I tried this.  One thing I notice is that the penny, because it is flat, diminishes in vertical apparent size as you go from viewing it from slightly above to viewing it edge on.  This makes a penny a poor comparison to a building.  Another thing I notice, is that I can still see the floor where the penny was.  There's no actual "horizon" blocking my view.
Title: Re: Photographic Evidence of Curvature Beyond the Visible Horizon
Post by: Nolhekh on September 18, 2011, 11:29:37 AM
One other thing I'd like to point out involves these two ship pictures at the same altitude and magnification.
Ship 1, 8x mag. 12m alt.
(http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6080/6155195173_dc4c9b9719_o.jpg) (http://www.flickr.com/photos/pitdroidtech/6155195173/)
Ships Below the Horizon (http://www.flickr.com/photos/pitdroidtech/6155195173/) by max_wedge (http://www.flickr.com/people/pitdroidtech/), on Flickr

Ship 1, 8x mag. 12m alt.
(http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6155/6155738378_71f20689ea_o.jpg) (http://www.flickr.com/photos/pitdroidtech/6155738378/)
Ships Below the Horizon (http://www.flickr.com/photos/pitdroidtech/6155738378/) by max_wedge (http://www.flickr.com/people/pitdroidtech/), on Flickr

In the firs picture the ship is in front of the horizon, and in the second it seems to be sitting on top of the horizon.
It is established that the horizon line represents eye level.  If this is the case, then in the first photo, the eyeline is at the top of the bottom third of the hull.  In the second, the eyeline is at the very bottom of the hull.  This seems to suggest that the water's surface is not flat.
Title: Re: Photographic Evidence of Curvature Beyond the Visible Horizon
Post by: Thork on September 18, 2011, 11:51:47 AM
There is an element of photoshopping in some of the OPs pictures.

A clean image should look like this.
http://errorlevelanalysis.com/permalink/212bc12/  or http://errorlevelanalysis.com/permalink/4037b7f/

An altered image looks like this
http://errorlevelanalysis.com/permalink/1b68cf2/

I just thought this relevant.
Title: Re: Photographic Evidence of Curvature Beyond the Visible Horizon
Post by: Nolhekh on September 18, 2011, 12:08:59 PM
There is an element of photoshopping in some of the OPs pictures.

A clean image should look like this.
http://errorlevelanalysis.com/permalink/212bc12/  or http://errorlevelanalysis.com/permalink/4037b7f/

An altered image looks like this
http://errorlevelanalysis.com/permalink/1b68cf2/

I just thought this relevant.

The sky seems to be the only part that doesnt fit.
Title: Re: Photographic Evidence of Curvature Beyond the Visible Horizon
Post by: Nolhekh on September 18, 2011, 12:14:37 PM
http://errorlevelanalysis.com/permalink/1ab2dbb/ (http://errorlevelanalysis.com/permalink/1ab2dbb/)
http://errorlevelanalysis.com/permalink/0d7cd81/ (http://errorlevelanalysis.com/permalink/0d7cd81/)
Looks like the earth is round after all
Title: Re: Photographic Evidence of Curvature Beyond the Visible Horizon
Post by: Thork on September 18, 2011, 12:21:02 PM
The entire boat has been moved on the altered one. The sky is not original (or at least did not come with that sea or has been moved in relation to the sea). The image is a composite.

Below, same boat, same lighting but not shopped.
http://errorlevelanalysis.com/permalink/b3c6708/

The other two may be used to continue the discussion using refraction/mirages etc as topics of debate, but many of these so-called proofs, handily put together by this flickr user, have been done so with an agenda. Feel free to copy the links in for yourself. Bright lines are a sure sign of shopping. Brightest objects are added last.

Yet again the Flat Earth Society is being besmirched by devious and untrustworthy round earthers. >:(
Title: Re: Photographic Evidence of Curvature Beyond the Visible Horizon
Post by: Nolhekh on September 18, 2011, 12:34:34 PM
http://errorlevelanalysis.com/permalink/27d658a/ (http://errorlevelanalysis.com/permalink/27d658a/)
This photoshop job which I did does not turn up any such bright lines.  And the sky and ground which are both of the same photograph appear as different as they do in the image with the ship.  There are even CG elements which produce hardly any difference.

This site does not seem to be entirely reliable.
Title: Re: Photographic Evidence of Curvature Beyond the Visible Horizon
Post by: Thork on September 18, 2011, 12:39:51 PM
What? That photoshop job you did is full of colour gradients. Just like the dodgy boat picture. Its easy to see that you added the things in the sky, the buildings etc. A 'clean picture' looks like the aerial fell out the back of your black and white TV. Read the FAQ on the site.

Its so obvious that boat picture was a shoop.

Clean (http://errorlevelanalysis.com/permalink/212bc12/)
Clean (http://errorlevelanalysis.com/permalink/4037b7f/)
Clean (http://errorlevelanalysis.com/permalink/b3c6708/)

Shopped (http://errorlevelanalysis.com/permalink/1b68cf2/)
Shopped (http://errorlevelanalysis.com/permalink/27d658a/)
Title: Re: Photographic Evidence of Curvature Beyond the Visible Horizon
Post by: Nolhekh on September 18, 2011, 12:45:11 PM
I guess this one is also shopped
http://errorlevelanalysis.com/permalink/f5770d3/ (http://errorlevelanalysis.com/permalink/f5770d3/)

And this seemingly obvious shopping doesn't turn up anything between the decks where you'd expect it.
http://errorlevelanalysis.com/permalink/40e25fc/ (http://errorlevelanalysis.com/permalink/40e25fc/)
Title: Re: Photographic Evidence of Curvature Beyond the Visible Horizon
Post by: Thork on September 18, 2011, 12:47:02 PM
Yes, in the top one, they have added nice weather (including some fair weather fluffy clouds) and changed the lighting for the sea to match.

And yes, the second one is a complete abortion. :P

Here is one I found. You can tell its shopped by looking at what they did to her legs. Either that or she has an enormous boyfriend.
http://errorlevelanalysis.com/permalink/c120c31/
Title: Re: Photographic Evidence of Curvature Beyond the Visible Horizon
Post by: Nolhekh on September 18, 2011, 01:00:43 PM
http://errorlevelanalysis.com/permalink/ff8adaf/ (http://errorlevelanalysis.com/permalink/ff8adaf/)
I took your non-shopped picture, and saved it as a low quality jpg.  Now it looks just like the one you thought was shopped.

Maybe it wasn't shopped after all.
Title: Re: Photographic Evidence of Curvature Beyond the Visible Horizon
Post by: momentia on September 18, 2011, 01:52:24 PM
Here is the other 8x/28x zoom photo with the two zooms compared side by side. (All I did was scale up the 8x and add lines and text.)

Notice that the waterline on both pictures is about equal. The extra zoom did nothing.
(http://i56.tinypic.com/2ut3kly.png)
Title: Re: Photographic Evidence of Curvature Beyond the Visible Horizon
Post by: pitdroidtech on September 18, 2011, 03:04:55 PM
can you estimate the radius of the earth from these observations?

No declination or distance measurements were taken, so no.

So according to these pictures:

  • The earth is (roughly) a sphere
  • It's impossible to describe the size of this sphere

This is a completely unscientific approach.
I'm not proving the earth is a sphere, though with precise enough equipment I could.  What I am proving is curvature of the earth's surface.
Title: Re: Photographic Evidence of Curvature Beyond the Visible Horizon
Post by: pitdroidtech on September 18, 2011, 03:10:14 PM
There is an element of photoshopping in some of the OPs pictures.

A clean image should look like this.
http://errorlevelanalysis.com/permalink/212bc12/  or http://errorlevelanalysis.com/permalink/4037b7f/

An altered image looks like this
http://errorlevelanalysis.com/permalink/1b68cf2/

I just thought this relevant.
That's completely facetious and dishonst Thork.  The image's have been resaved in the process of converting from RAW, then later due to cropping.

If the images were cut and past jobs there would be more obvious evidence than what you presented.  In fact your analysis proves the images have not been photoshopped beyond what any normal process is conducted on a photograph in the workflow process.
Title: Re: Photographic Evidence of Curvature Beyond the Visible Horizon
Post by: Thork on September 18, 2011, 03:13:41 PM
If the images have been altered, then I cannot accept them on face value. Lord knows what has been done to them.
Title: Re: Photographic Evidence of Curvature Beyond the Visible Horizon
Post by: pitdroidtech on September 18, 2011, 03:47:14 PM
If the images have been altered, then I cannot accept them on face value. Lord knows what has been done to them.
I've got nothing to hide.  I will upload all untouched images shortly.  The images are converted to jpg from the camera's raw format using the "as shot" settings, only because flickr does not accept RAW images.  The entire set in RAW format is 980Mb.  If you want original RAW copies, pm me and I will email you copies of the spcific images you want to verify. 

Thork, not sure what you really know about photography, but your amatuerish assessment of my images via this tool (which incidently claims "If you are unsure how to interpret the results, please do not claim the results of this tool as proof of anything") does not say m uch I'm afraid.

Also, let's look at the assessment. All of these images were cropped and saved as jpg direct from Lightroom.  Others were further cropped for viewability by Faststone Maxview, which may explain the diffferences in analysis between the two container ship photos.  The image that you claim is "shopped" merely shows signs of being saved in a different program:
Quote
It is worth noting that edges and areas red in colour are often depicted as brighter in the ELA tests. This due to the way the photos are saved by various programs. It is not proof that image was manipulated.

The edges and areas that are brighter, are indeed red in the original picture.

btw, the "flickr user" is me, I am not trawling flickr for images to use; I took these images myself and am the only person who has handled them from start to finish.

If upon testing my originals, you still find the same results, then you are not reading the results correctly. 
Title: Re: Photographic Evidence of Curvature Beyond the Visible Horizon
Post by: pitdroidtech on September 18, 2011, 04:14:31 PM
http://errorlevelanalysis.com/permalink/ff8adaf/ (http://errorlevelanalysis.com/permalink/ff8adaf/)
I took your non-shopped picture, and saved it as a low quality jpg.  Now it looks just like the one you thought was shopped.

Maybe it wasn't shopped after all.
Exactly. Because Thork can't read the analysis correctly, he is assuming the dark sky is a sign of photoshopping.  Yet in the analysis it clearly says "they will stand out as a different colour", not as a large area of black, which appears instead to point to high jpg compression on areas of mostly one colour.  The large black area doesn't correspond to the example given by the author of the tool.
Title: Re: Photographic Evidence of Curvature Beyond the Visible Horizon
Post by: pitdroidtech on September 18, 2011, 04:45:09 PM
Hurriedly, I'll type another brief message. I hope to give the subject the time it deserves later.

The refracted image, along with the fact that slightly more of the view is visible in the telescopic shots, is consistant with my findings.  See below for images with white lines drawn through the fold line of the refraction. 

I wholly agree with you, in fact, I had thought about including these lines, but it was already late and I slouched. The problem with your interpretation is that the white line drawn on the inferior mirage represents the true horizon. In an inferior mirage the mirage is mirrored below the horizon. I'm sure we can agree with this.
Again, the hill and buildings thereon are restored by magnification. If everything under the white line is projected below the horizon on water, the white line represents the hill of water that rotundity insists is there. The hill of water should not recede by magnification. I will approach this again later tonight, if you wish, but I think I've demonstrated the point sufficiently for everyone to grasp at the moment.

0m 8x
(http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6207/6157877899_75e2bccae0.jpg) (http://www.flickr.com/photos/pitdroidtech/6157877899/)
Inferior Mirage (http://www.flickr.com/photos/pitdroidtech/6157877899/) by max_wedge (http://www.flickr.com/people/pitdroidtech/), on Flickr

0m 28x
(http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6153/6157877819_d7b011affe.jpg) (http://www.flickr.com/photos/pitdroidtech/6157877819/)
Inferior Mirage (http://www.flickr.com/photos/pitdroidtech/6157877819/) by max_wedge (http://www.flickr.com/people/pitdroidtech/), on Flickr


Quote
  Nevertheless, when all the images are taken together, it's quite clear that more is visible at higher elevations.  Indeed, even if the telescopic view HAD restored part of the view, the non-telescopic elevated view restored FAR MORE of the view:
Of course they do because by raising your elevation you are allowing your eye-line to recede farther before it shrinks. This is covered in ENaG, and I don't have time to post more deeply at the moment.


Quote
In a Flat Earth Scenario, increased elevation can not restore any part of the image, since there is no hill of curvature to obsure anything in the first place.
This is not true, and the misunderstanding is because you are misrepresenting true perspective. A simple observation on a locally level surface (basketball court?) will demonstrate this for you. Place a small coin upright at the edge of he court and place your eye as close to the surface at the other end of the court. You will be unable to discern the entirety of the coin until you raise your eye level, but this has nothing to do with a hill of concrete in between you and the coin, and everything to do with your ability to discern objects at distance.

Quote
Also please note, I will gladly do more such experiments, and also hope to do some on a day were there is no mirage evident.
This would be splendid. Thank you again. I will also address some of the other photos you have taken when I have the time, but this series of pictures showed the effect for markedly than the others.
We may have to agree to disagree, but I cannot accept Rowbotham's theory on perspective.  He provides no explanation and his drawings are non-sensical.  There are no lines of sight or reflection/refraction used to demonstrate exactly how his perspective is supposed to work.  It's easy to verify the laws of optics with regards to reflection, refraction, deflection and defraction of light rays.  Rowbotham's perspective on the other hand can not even be represented mathematically (using geometry).

The example you give of the coin is odd and does not tally with my experience.  I can easily see the whole coin at that distance, certainly the bottom half of it is not obscured, and standing up and viewing the coin does not make it any clearer.

But also note what we are talking about here, is not "clarity" but the actual blocking from view of the lower part of something.  Even if the coin was not clear from the ground, but more clear from the standing height, it would not be ab accurate analogy of what my photos are showing.

My photos show clearly, that as elevation is increased more of the image comes within view, a part of the view that was not visible at all at the lower elevation.  The clarity of the images at the different elevations is the same, but more of the lower segment of the view is visible at the higher elevation.
Title: Re: Photographic Evidence of Curvature Beyond the Visible Horizon
Post by: pitdroidtech on September 18, 2011, 04:59:46 PM


I wholly agree with you, in fact, I had thought about including these lines, but it was already late and I slouched. The problem with your interpretation is that the white line drawn on the inferior mirage represents the true horizon. In an inferior mirage the mirage is mirrored below the horizon. I'm sure we can agree with this.
Again, the hill and buildings thereon are restored by magnification. If everything under the white line is projected below the horizon on water, the white line represents the hill of water that rotundity insists is there. The hill of water should not recede by magnification. I will approach this again later tonight, if you wish, but I think I've demonstrated the point sufficiently for everyone to grasp at the moment.

Please accept my appologies for rather clumsily failing to mark my photos accurately with elevation YET AGAIN(!), but for further reference, all 28x photos that I have posted to this point, where actually taken at 1.5m and not sea level.

All other details are accurate.

So the remaining issue is the question of Rowbotham's perspective, which needs to be resolved before we can assume from my photos that the surface of the earth is curved.

However, I hope you can agree, my photos do tend to show that elevation is the factor that makes more of the view visible, and that objects do atleast appear to fall below the horizon and that viewing through a telescope does not minimise this affect.

That said, and as said before I will continue to conduct these experiments, since the collection of repeat data is what allows us to eliminate chance environmental conditions as the cause of our apparent findings.



Title: Re: Photographic Evidence of Curvature Beyond the Visible Horizon
Post by: sandokhan on September 19, 2011, 02:17:29 AM
The photographs posted on this thread can be explained very easily; no need to accuse somebody of photoshopping anything...the lower portion of the ships disappear very simply because the camera could not capture all the details at that distance; with a reflector telescope we would recover the whole image...let me explain what is going on...

(http://img367.imageshack.us/img367/3350/figuratangentaew0.gif)


BD = (R + h)/{RAD[2Rh + h^2](sin s/R)(1/R) + cos s/R} - R

RAD = SQUARE ROOT OF []

R = 6378.164 km

h = AE = height of observer/photographer

s = distance at the surface, for example 34 km between England and France across the English Channel

BD = height of observable visual target on a round earth


Data for St. Catharines, Lake Ontario, distance to Toronto, 50 km:

2 meters (observer) - 158 meters (visual obstacle)

3 - 150.5

5 - 138

10 - 117.5


http://ireland.iol.ie/~geniet/eng/refract.htm#Terrestrial (online terrestrial refraction calculation)



http://www.flickr.com/photos/j-a-x/129240474/sizes/l/in/photostream/

(http://img12.imageshack.us/img12/3238/toronto34.jpg)

Height of Sky Dome: 90 meters, the building itself can be seen without any terrestrial refraction in the photograph, but we will include 10 meters, for the sake of the discussion; that is, the influence of the refraction will be some 10 meters...


Two other photographs, taken right there, on the same beach:

http://valdodge.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/08/pirate-ship-5137.jpg
http://valdodge.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/08/mirage-across-the-lake-5112.jpg


(http://valdodge.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/08/pirate-ship-5137.jpg)
(http://valdodge.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/08/mirage-across-the-lake-5112.jpg)

The altitude of the photographer can be easily estimated to be at or around 10 meters (if we would ascend to some 20 meters, that would mean that we are on top of a five-story building; certainly not the case here, as we can see from the photographs themselves; I would estimate some 5 meters, but we will go to 10 meters).

On a round earth, taking refraction into account, and ascending to some 10 meters, it would still be impossible to see the rooftop of the Sky Dome.


Now, the fact that the lower portion of a building/ship cannot be seen in some photographs is a result of the quality of the camera used:


http://www.flickr.com/photos/j-a-x/150629243/ (CN Tower barely visible)

http://www.flickr.com/photos/j-a-x/83867796/ (with a better camera, more details become visible)

http://www.flickr.com/photos/j-a-x/129240474/sizes/l/in/photostream/ (and the rooftop of the Sky Dome very visible, completely impossible on a round earth)


Now let us really take care of business.

As always, for Grimsby, we will ascend to some 240 meters (even though the highest altitude there is Vinemount Ridge, 213 meters); from that height, we could barely see the first signs of the beach from Toronto, distance 55 km, curvature of 59 meters.

In the following photographs, there is no curvature whatsoever, not a single centimeter, no 59 meters curvature in sight.

http://www.weatherandsky.com/Mirages/Mirages.html

(http://www.weatherandsky.com/Mirages/TorontoDay.jpg)

(http://www.weatherandsky.com/LakeViews/IMG_0734.JPG)

http://www.flickr.com/photos/tundrabluephotography/312939439/

(http://farm1.static.flickr.com/117/312939439_ef682e2d8a_z.jpg?zz=1)


http://www.flickr.com/photos/suckamc/53037827/
(http://farm1.static.flickr.com/29/53037827_fdb83b96bd_b.jpg)






Title: Re: Photographic Evidence of Curvature Beyond the Visible Horizon
Post by: sandokhan on September 19, 2011, 02:24:31 AM
NO CURVATURE ACROSS THE ENGLISH CHANNEL:

The original webpages as they appeared on flickr.com about four years ago:

(http://img844.imageshack.us/img844/9423/cap1rp.jpg)
(http://img684.imageshack.us/img684/2548/cap2q.jpg)

The photographers are located right on the Cap Gris Nez beach, at an altitude of about 2-3 meters...the small rectangle in the photo is Cap Blanc Nez:

(http://img827.imageshack.us/img827/8526/doverbest2.jpg)

SHIPSPOTTING ON CAP GRIZ NEZ, ZERO CURVATURE ALL THE WAY TO ENGLAND, WHITE CLIFFS, DOVER:

(http://img685.imageshack.us/img685/6801/doverbest.jpg)

No curvature whatsoever, a completely flat surface of the English Channel

(http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1051/4726849923_389dba2176.jpg)
white cliffs dover


Another photograph taken from Cap Gris Nez:

http://www.expedition360.com/journal/archives/2007/09/

(http://www.expedition360.com/journal/white_cliffs.jpg)

To meet the requirements of the RE, here are the numbers for different altitudes (we will go all the way to 20 meters, that is, the height of a five-story building):


h = 3 m BD = 60.6
h = 5 m BD = 53
h = 10m BD = 40.4
h = 20m BD = 25.5

That is, from an altitude of 20 meters, we would not see anything below 25.5 from the other side; the White Cliffs are in full view...


Let us go to Lake Michigan...

From Holland Michigan, across the Lake Michigan, lights of three different communities were seen (one of them Milwaukee), across a distance of 128 km.

http://nl.newsbank.com/nl-search/we/Archives?p_action=keyword&s_search_type=keyword&p_product=HSHH&p_theme=gatehouse (on the archive webpage, May 28, 2003, Oh Say Can You See article)

(http://img36.imageshack.us/img36/7972/mich1i.jpg)
(http://img25.imageshack.us/img25/9995/mich2e.jpg)
(http://img99.imageshack.us/img99/7164/mich3d.jpg)

'As twilight deepened, there were more and more lights.'

Bringing out a pair of binoculars, Kanis said he was able to make out the shape of some buildings.

'With the binoculars we could make out three different communities,' Kanis said.

According to one Coast Guard crewman, it is possible to see city lights across the lake at very specific times.

Currently a Coast Guard crewman stationed in Holland, Todd Reed has worked on the east side of Lake Michigan for 30 years and said he's been able to see lights across the lake at least a dozen times.

THE CURVATURE FOR 128 KM IS 321 METERS.

THE HOUSE OF THOSE RESIDENTS IS LOCATED RIGHT NEXT TO THE LAKE, BUT LET US INVESTIGATE VARIOUS ALTITUDES, FOR THE SAKE OF DISCUSSION.

h = 3 meters BD = 1163 METERS

h = 5 meters BD = 1129 METERS

h = 10 meters BD = 1068 METERS

h = 20 meters BD = 984 METERS

h = 50 meters BD = 827.6 METERS

h = 100 meters BD = 667.6 METERS

The highest building in Milwaukee has a height of 183 meters, the difference from h = 5 meters in altitude being 946 meters, and those residents saw the buildings from THREE DIFFERENT COMMUNITIES, two of which have buildings whose heights measure way under 183 meters.

Therefore, the only way those buildings could be seen, given the 128 km distance, would be if the surface of Lake Michigan is completely flat (you can also use the above formula on atmospheric refraction to see how impossible it is to see shapes of buildings over a 128 km distance).

THE TALLEST BUILDING IN RACINE IS THE COUNTY COURTHOUSE, 40 METERS; IT WOULD BE ABSOLUTELY IMPOSSIBLE TO SEE THIS COURTHOUSE FROM 128 KM DISTANCE, FROM HOLLAND.
Title: Re: Photographic Evidence of Curvature Beyond the Visible Horizon
Post by: trig on September 19, 2011, 03:57:40 AM
with a reflector telescope we would recover the whole image...let me explain what is going on...
In just one phrase levee has shown us that he does not have even a hint of knowledge on Optics.

Reflector telescopes and Refractor telescopes produce about the same quality of images for a given aperture. The only real difference is chromatic aberration, which is a lot less in current telescopes due to the advance in optical glass and lens design.

If we were having chromatic aberration problems, colored rainbows would appear around bright objects, reducing overall resolution. But in these photographs we do not see the first hint of chromatic aberration.

And then, if we did post photographs made with a reflector telescope, you would declare that silver coated reflectors are not good enough, that some other telescope design is needed to make the ship visible again. And then you would start with the camera, or anything else. That is called special pleading.

PS., levee does not show one photograph in which the photographer explains the circumstances in which he took the photos. Now that he has embarked in Rowbotham's idea of different lenses recovering different parts of the objects, we can tell him to give us the information about the lenses and other circumstances or stop showing the photos he got from the Internet or other threads.
Title: Re: Photographic Evidence of Curvature Beyond the Visible Horizon
Post by: Nolhekh on September 19, 2011, 07:10:56 AM
As always, for Grimsby, we will ascend to some 240 meters (even though the highest altitude there is Vinemount Ridge, 213 meters); from that height, we could barely see the first signs of the beach from Toronto, distance 55 km, curvature of 59 meters.

In the following photographs, there is no curvature whatsoever, not a single centimeter, no 59 meters curvature in sight.

http://www.weatherandsky.com/Mirages/Mirages.html

(http://www.weatherandsky.com/Mirages/TorontoDay.jpg)

(http://www.weatherandsky.com/LakeViews/IMG_0734.JPG)

http://www.flickr.com/photos/tundrabluephotography/312939439/

(http://farm1.static.flickr.com/117/312939439_ef682e2d8a_z.jpg?zz=1)


http://www.flickr.com/photos/suckamc/53037827/
(http://farm1.static.flickr.com/29/53037827_fdb83b96bd_b.jpg)

Actually, by my RE calculations, at 240 metres, your horizon would be 55.3 kilometers away.  The CN Tower, is only 53 kilometers away from Grimsby, making the beach of Toronto well within the visible range of the Vinemount Ridge.  No curvature should be visible in front of Toronto at this height, and thanks to your posted images, we can confirm that this is the case.
Title: Re: Photographic Evidence of Curvature Beyond the Visible Horizon
Post by: Nolhekh on September 19, 2011, 07:21:53 AM
Another thing to note, is that with a Flat Earth, the horizon should represent the eye level.  If the observer's altitude is 240m, then the horizon should cut through every object in the distance at that level.  The CN Tower is about 550 metres tall.  At 240m we should see the horizon cut through the CN tower just below halfway to its top.  Instead, the entire city seems to be sitting on top of the horizon.  This should be impossible even for rowbotham's perspective as the lower parts of the buildings should disappear rather than rise above the horizon.  However, with Toronto at a distance of roughly 55 km, and with round earth geometry predicting a 55 km distant horizon, these photographs are completely in line with round earth predictions.
Title: Re: Photographic Evidence of Curvature Beyond the Visible Horizon
Post by: momentia on September 19, 2011, 09:30:44 AM
Levee, before you go posting the english channel more,
[quote title=http://www.gitesduventus.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=7&Itemid=8&lang=en] The cliffs of the Cap are the closest point of France to England - 34 km (20 miles) from their English counterparts at Dover. Smothered in sea pinks and thrift, the cliffs are a perfect vantage point to see hundreds of ships from oil tankers to little fishing trawlers plying the waters below. On a clear day, the emblematic white cliffs of Dover on the English shore can be seen. Cap Gris Nez (height 45 m.) is a well-known migration hot-spot and sea watching site.
[/quote]

Yeah, so the horizon is 23 km away., and the cliffs are 34 km away.
The white cliffs of dover can be over 100 meters tall.

34-23=11 km

sqrt(11^2+6300^2)-6300)*1000 = 9.6 meters should be hidden.
You can't tell if 10% of the cliffs are invisible from the photos

Also, Nolhekh is right about 240 metres. Your math is incorrect, and the ontario pictures agree with a round earth, and again show proper curvature.


As for your account of the coast guard
"Currently a Coast Guard crewman stationed in Holland, Todd Reed has worked on the east side of Lake Michigan for 30 years and said he's been able to see lights across the lake at least a dozen times."

A dozen times in 30 years? On a flat earth, that should happen way more often. Sometimes, the air does funny things, and mirages occur, like:
(http://www.weatherandsky.com/Mirages/May2006/IMG_1479.jpg)
Title: Re: Photographic Evidence of Curvature Beyond the Visible Horizon
Post by: Ski on September 19, 2011, 05:45:43 PM
I tried this.  One thing I notice is that the penny, because it is flat, diminishes in vertical apparent size as you go from viewing it from slightly above to viewing it edge on.  This makes a penny a poor comparison to a building.  Another thing I notice, is that I can still see the floor where the penny was.  There's no actual "horizon" blocking my view.

You are simulating an object very distant. As you look at a building from a mostly vertical angle the "apparent size" decreases as well. You can still see the floor where the penny was, just as you can still see the sea. There is no actual "horizon" blocking your view. But again, I appreciate the fact you actually performed this experiment instead of accepting "axioms" as fact.

Title: Re: Photographic Evidence of Curvature Beyond the Visible Horizon
Post by: Ski on September 19, 2011, 05:51:11 PM
We may have to agree to disagree, but I cannot accept Rowbotham's theory on perspective.  He provides no explanation and his drawings are non-sensical. "
Actually, they do make sense, but because they are not what we are taught, it takes a few minutes to grasp the significant points. I had trouble with it as well, when I first read it.

Quote
Rowbotham's perspective on the other hand can not even be represented mathematically (using geometry).
I'm sure they could be, but it would take someone brighter than I to do the math, I am sure.

Quote
The example you give of the coin is odd and does not tally with my experience. 
Please actually try this at a local basket ball court. Anyone can demonstrate this with a minimum of effort, and it was done faithfully above by another poster.

Quote
I can easily see the whole coin at that distance, certainly the bottom half of it is not obscured, and standing up and viewing the coin does not make it any clearer.
The question is certainly not of clarity, but of ability to resolve the coin in any way.

Quote
My photos show clearly, that as elevation is increased more of the image comes within view, a part of the view that was not visible at all at the lower elevation. 
Correct, just as Rowbotham predicts. You are raising your eye's level extending the horizon.

Title: Re: Photographic Evidence of Curvature Beyond the Visible Horizon
Post by: pitdroidtech on September 19, 2011, 06:01:12 PM
I can't really add to what's already been said.  Trig, Momentia and Nolhekh covered it perfectly well.  The so called flat earth evidence posted by levee, not even the work of the levee themselves but random pics gathered from the net with no comparative views and sketchy details, really doesn't stand up against my findings.  Might I say too, that my findings aren't definitive.  I need to do more work to build up a comprehensive study of photos of ships on and past the horizon in different conditions to present an unarguable position.  Yet my photos are already far more powerful a visual proof than levee's random net gatherings.

Levee:
Quote
The photographs posted on this thread can be explained very easily; no need to accuse somebody of photoshopping anything...the lower portion of the ships disappear very simply because the camera could not capture all the details at that distance; with a reflector telescope we would recover the whole image...let me explain what is going on...
Thanks for your support, I certainly haven't photoshopped anything, but I'm not worried by claims that I have since this evidence can be repeated by any flat earther anytime they want and posted on this thread to counter my evidence.  If flat earther's can't produce experimental evidence to counter my findings, with atleast some details of elevation, distance and so on and comparative views, then their claims of photoshopping just look like insecure blustering (or the trolling that it is).

Regarding the lower portion of the ship disappearing due to the camera not being capable of resolving the detail; this is patently absurd.  The detail on the upper sections of the ships is quite clear.  What you are proposing is that the details of the lower portions of the hull would require more powerful magnification to resolve than the upper portion.  This isn't going to be achieved with a reflector telescope. You need a tool from Harry Potter's magic box to achieve that.

It's time for the FE'ers to cut the mustard regarding Rowbotham's supposed working of perspective.  They need to propose just how such a fanciful notion can occur. Quoting ENag isn't enough.  eNAg doesn't provide any explanation that involves a geometric model that shows how rays of light are reflected or refracted to cause the illusion of the ship disappearing from the bottom up.  Quoting eNAG when talking about perspective can only be interpreted as trolling from now on.  Come on FE'ers, surely one of you has enough mathematical ability to propose a model that accounts for this affect of perspective that the FE theory so strongly relies on?  Free yourself from eNaG I say!

Title: Re: Photographic Evidence of Curvature Beyond the Visible Horizon
Post by: Ski on September 19, 2011, 06:04:11 PM
Please accept my appologies for rather clumsily failing to mark my photos accurately with elevation YET AGAIN(!), but for further reference, all 28x photos that I have posted to this point, where actually taken at 1.5m and not sea level.
I had assumed the pictures to be taken at some distance above actual sea level or nothing would effectively seen, even with a calm sea.

Quote
However, I hope you can agree, my photos do tend to show that elevation is the factor that makes more of the view visible, and that objects do atleast appear to fall below the horizon and that viewing through a telescope does not minimise this affect.
I agree with your first point, but not the second. Buildings that were not present at 8x magnification were present at 28x. This is impossible to assign to the inferior mirage. Magnification should not move the visible horizon or affect the sight lines. The light will take the same path from hill/buildings to lens regardless of magnification. Clearly, restoration was present in your photographs.
Some small amount of restoration was also seen in the pictures of the apartments, but because of their relative nearness, it was much less prominent (near negligible really). Ideally, we could have a picture of a stationary ship at the horizon. Unfortunately, lightships are no longer en vogue. I noticed in at least one of your pictures the horizon is farther than the ship, this makes looking for restoration useless (this is by no means criticism, as I said, I am very pleased that you made the results of your effort available to us).

Quote
That said, and as said before I will continue to conduct these experiments, since the collection of repeat data is what allows us to eliminate chance environmental conditions as the cause of our apparent findings.
This would be ideal. The more viewings of the same sights, should give us the more reliable data to base our findings on.
Title: Re: Photographic Evidence of Curvature Beyond the Visible Horizon
Post by: pitdroidtech on September 19, 2011, 06:14:42 PM
Correct, just as Rowbotham predicts. You are raising your eye's level extending the horizon.
Regarding the math, it's already been done.  The study of optics is a well proven and demonstrated body of mathematics.  It simply does not account for Rowbotham's hypothesis.

As to the increasing view of the horizon upon elevation; Actually no, but in practice, the eye is easier able to make out the details of the tops of objects near the viewer than at low elevations.  So if for example the coin were laid flat, then as you stand up, more details of the coin's face will become discernable.  This is not the same as extending your view of the horizon.  You can still see all the way to the horizon from a low altitude, but you can only see the vertical component of the object ie: you can not see any detail of the top of the object.  Even if the object is lower than oneself, you still cannot see the details because the angle of incidence is so low that the details are squashed into a narrow band which the human eye can not resolve.  But you can see the vertical face of the object clearly.

Don't worry I will conduct your experiment, this thread is very much about experimentaly repeatable scientific findings.  There has been enough of people claiming "read ENaG" without being prepared to go and see for themselves how things work.  They are giving Zeteticism a bad name.
Title: Re: Photographic Evidence of Curvature Beyond the Visible Horizon
Post by: Ski on September 19, 2011, 06:23:09 PM
As to the increasing view of the horizon upon elevation; Actually no, but in practice, the eye is easier able to make out the details of the tops of objects near the viewer than at low elevations.  So if for example the coin were laid flat, then as you stand up, more details of the coin's face will become discernable. 
I am not at all concerned with the face of the coin unless it is upright. The issue is your eyes ability to resolve the coin or any other object at distance.


Quote
Don't worry I will conduct your experiment, this thread is very much about experimentaly repeatable scientific findings.  There has been enough of people claiming "read ENaG" without being prepared to go and see for themselves how things work.  They are giving Zeteticism a bad name.
I think if you read ENaG, and then perhaps re-read ENaG, his laws make sense. It took more than one reading for me to sort them out as well. Perhaps I will try to make new diagrams and take some pictures of my own to set them out. I wish I lived closer to the sea.
Title: Re: Photographic Evidence of Curvature Beyond the Visible Horizon
Post by: pitdroidtech on September 19, 2011, 06:34:29 PM

I think if you read ENaG, and then perhaps re-read ENaG, his laws make sense. It took more than one reading for me to sort them out as well. Perhaps I will try to make new diagrams and take some pictures of my own to set them out. I wish I lived closer to the sea.
I have read it and reread it to ascertain just how Rowbotham has drawn his conclusions.  There are base assumptions that he makes that underly his drawings.  There is no attempt made to qualify these base assumptions.

Regarding the coin, standing on it's end, perhaps you should take some photos of this experiment yourself.  A part of me is inclined not to do the experiment, on the basis that you may simply be trolling and laughing at me as I go about conducting experiments that you yourself haven't actually done!  ;)

But tbh, I enjoy debate and I enjoy photography and this gives me something different to do with my (shortage of) spare time.

Title: Re: Photographic Evidence of Curvature Beyond the Visible Horizon
Post by: Nolhekh on September 19, 2011, 06:50:33 PM
I tried this.  One thing I notice is that the penny, because it is flat, diminishes in vertical apparent size as you go from viewing it from slightly above to viewing it edge on.  This makes a penny a poor comparison to a building.  Another thing I notice, is that I can still see the floor where the penny was.  There's no actual "horizon" blocking my view.

You are simulating an object very distant. As you look at a building from a mostly vertical angle the "apparent size" decreases as well.
Except that our experiment involves things disappearing when viewed from a horizontal angle, which a building does not do.  You can simulate a building better with a lego brick.  the 2 x 2 kind, which has the same width as a penny.  Preferably red, so that you can be sure if it's really diminishing beyond our minimum ocular resolution.
Title: Re: Photographic Evidence of Curvature Beyond the Visible Horizon
Post by: Nolhekh on September 19, 2011, 07:11:43 PM
We may have to agree to disagree, but I cannot accept Rowbotham's theory on perspective.  He provides no explanation and his drawings are non-sensical. "
Actually, they do make sense, but because they are not what we are taught, it takes a few minutes to grasp the significant points. I had trouble with it as well, when I first read it.
I developed my own understanding of perspective through hours of mathematical study and revelation to gain an advantage over other students.  So, while I was still tought, my lack of acceptance of Rowbotham's explanations has nothing to do with my education.  My own spatial sense tells me right away when something he claims is mathematically out of place.

Quote
Quote
Rowbotham's perspective on the other hand can not even be represented mathematically (using geometry).
I'm sure they could be, but it would take someone brighter than I to do the math, I am sure.
So far I have been unsuccessful.  Some of his claims are in direct conflict with trigonometry, which is a major component of my mathematical understanding of perspective.

Quote
My photos show clearly, that as elevation is increased more of the image comes within view, a part of the view that was not visible at all at the lower elevation. 
Correct, just as Rowbotham predicts. You are raising your eye's level extending the horizon.
[/quote]
This extending of the horizon in the context of a flat earth is, to my knowledge, mathematically impossible, but is possible on a round earth, and thanks to Levee's post and given altitude I was able to mathematically determine that his photo was precisely in line with the prediction I calculated using RET.
Title: Re: Photographic Evidence of Curvature Beyond the Visible Horizon
Post by: momentia on September 19, 2011, 09:11:39 PM
I think if you read ENaG, and then perhaps re-read ENaG, his laws make sense. It took more than one reading for me to sort them out as well. Perhaps I will try to make new diagrams and take some pictures of my own to set them out. I wish I lived closer to the sea.
Don't worry, I'm fairly familiar with ENaG.

I posted a similar argument to the one below before, but never got a response. My argument will use ship 2 photos:

If:

T1) If [there is nothing obscuring an object from view] then:
[Iff the angular diameter of an object is less than 1 arc minute (2.909*10^-4 radians), that object is invisible.]
(This is Rowbotham's theorem, mathematically.)

T2) The angular diameter of an object is about the object's height in radians divided by the distance to the object times the magnification of the lens used. (AD = (height)*(magnification)/(distance) )

Then:

L1) Let: the distance to the ship be 25 km.
h be the height of the part of the hull that is invisible.
magnification of the lens = 28.

L2) By T2, an object viewed through a 28x lens at 25 km will have an angular diameter of 1 arc second or greater iff the object's height, y, satisfies:
y ≥ (distance)*(AD)/(magnification) = 25000*2.909*10^-4 / 28
y ≥ 0.26 m.
So, anything bigger than 0.26 m across at 25 km is greater than one arc-minute.

L3) h ≥ .26 m by inspection of the photo taken from a high position. By L2, The hidden hull has an angular diameter of 1 arc minute or greater. (Indeed, much greater)

L4) By L3 and T1, since the hull is invisible and the hull has an angular diameter of more than one arc minute, it must be obscured by something. This is zetetically observed to be water.

L5) By L4, the water demonstrates curvature, which is indicative of an RE.


That is all. If you wish to argue, please point to the line you believe is in error, and correct it.
Title: Re: Photographic Evidence of Curvature Beyond the Visible Horizon
Post by: sandokhan on September 20, 2011, 01:43:32 AM
Actually, by my RE calculations, at 240 metres, your horizon would be 55.3 kilometers away.  The CN Tower, is only 53 kilometers away from Grimsby, making the beach of Toronto well within the visible range of the Vinemount Ridge.  No curvature should be visible in front of Toronto at this height, and thanks to your posted images, we can confirm that this is the case.

Do you understand where you are, and what is being debated here?

We have a distance of 55 km (as I said, we do ascend to 240 meters), and a curvature of 59 meters; that is, an ascending slope, a midpoint curvature of 59 meters, which does not exist. Of course that curvature should be visible, there would not be a way to avoid seeing it; what you want is a round earth with no curvature...those photographs prove clearly that there is no curvature across Lake Ontario.

However, with Toronto at a distance of roughly 55 km, and with round earth geometry predicting a 55 km distant horizon, these photographs are completely in line with round earth predictions.

No they are not...there is no ascending slope, no midpoint curvature of 59 meters...the surface of Lake Ontario is perfectly flat...that what can be seen quite clearly...

As for your account of the coast guard
"Currently a Coast Guard crewman stationed in Holland, Todd Reed has worked on the east side of Lake Michigan for 30 years and said he's been able to see lights across the lake at least a dozen times."

A dozen times in 30 years? On a flat earth, that should happen way more often. Sometimes, the air does funny things, and mirages occur, like:


On a round earth you cannot see the County Courthouse of Racine, or buildings from Milwaukee, PERIOD. It does not matter how many times it was seen; they are not looking at the other shoreline all the time...

The visual obstacle is over 1000 meters...you cannot use terrestrial refraction, or optical reflection to explain your way out of this...the reason those buildings can be seen is that the surface of Lake Michigan is perfectly flat.

Yeah, so the horizon is 23 km away., and the cliffs are 34 km away.
The white cliffs of dover can be over 100 meters tall.

34-23=11 km

sqrt(11^2+6300^2)-6300)*1000 = 9.6 meters should be hidden.
You can't tell if 10% of the cliffs are invisible from the photos


You are dreaming. From those
Title: Re: Photographic Evidence of Curvature Beyond the Visible Horizon
Post by: sandokhan on September 20, 2011, 01:45:29 AM
Actually, by my RE calculations, at 240 metres, your horizon would be 55.3 kilometers away.  The CN Tower, is only 53 kilometers away from Grimsby, making the beach of Toronto well within the visible range of the Vinemount Ridge.  No curvature should be visible in front of Toronto at this height, and thanks to your posted images, we can confirm that this is the case.

Do you understand where you are, and what is being debated here?

We have a distance of 55 km (as I said, we do ascend to 240 meters), and a curvature of 59 meters; that is, an ascending slope, a midpoint curvature of 59 meters, which does not exist. Of course that curvature should be visible, there would not be a way to avoid seeing it; what you want is a round earth with no curvature...those photographs prove clearly that there is no curvature across Lake Ontario.

However, with Toronto at a distance of roughly 55 km, and with round earth geometry predicting a 55 km distant horizon, these photographs are completely in line with round earth predictions.

No they are not...there is no ascending slope, no midpoint curvature of 59 meters...the surface of Lake Ontario is perfectly flat...that what can be seen quite clearly...

As for your account of the coast guard
"Currently a Coast Guard crewman stationed in Holland, Todd Reed has worked on the east side of Lake Michigan for 30 years and said he's been able to see lights across the lake at least a dozen times."

A dozen times in 30 years? On a flat earth, that should happen way more often. Sometimes, the air does funny things, and mirages occur, like:


On a round earth you cannot see the County Courthouse of Racine, or buildings from Milwaukee, PERIOD. It does not matter how many times it was seen; they are not looking at the other shoreline all the time...

The visual obstacle is over 1000 meters...you cannot use terrestrial refraction, or optical reflexion to explain your way out of this...the reason those buildings can be seen is that the surface of Lake Michigan is perfectly flat.

Yeah, so the horizon is 23 km away., and the cliffs are 34 km away.
The white cliffs of dover can be over 100 meters tall.

34-23=11 km

sqrt(11^2+6300^2)-6300)*1000 = 9.6 meters should be hidden.
You can't tell if 10% of the cliffs are invisible from the photos


You are dreaming. From those 2 meters right there on the beach of Cap Gris Nez, you CANNOT SEE ANYTHING BELOW 65 METERS, THAT IS WHY I POSTED THE PRECISE FORMULAS. The full view of the White Cliffs of Dover are in sight, no curvature whatsoever across the English Channel, no ascending, no descending slope.

(http://img685.imageshack.us/img685/6801/doverbest.jpg)


The so called flat earth evidence posted by levee, not even the work of the levee themselves but random pics gathered from the net with no comparative views and sketchy details, really doesn't stand up against my findings.

Your photographs prove nothing about a flat or round earth...you state: 15 to 25 km...and a altitude of 12 meters, or even lower than that...the pictures show that your camera did not capture the entire details, that is, the lower portion of the ships, as can be seen quite clearly from the messages you posted.

My photographs show that there is no curvature across Lake Ontario and the English Channel.

(http://farm1.static.flickr.com/117/312939439_ef682e2d8a_z.jpg?zz=1)

(http://farm1.static.flickr.com/29/53037827_fdb83b96bd_b.jpg)

NO ASCENDING SLOPE, NO MIDPOINT CURVATURE OF 59 METERS...NO CURVATURE WHATSOEVER.


And you cannot explain this one either:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/j-a-x/129240474/sizes/l/in/photostream/

(http://img12.imageshack.us/img12/3238/toronto34.jpg)

The rooftop of the Sky Dome visible from the St. Catharines beach; I already posted the numbers...you cannot see anything below at least 120 meters from St. Catharines...
Title: Re: Photographic Evidence of Curvature Beyond the Visible Horizon
Post by: pitdroidtech on September 20, 2011, 04:37:20 AM

The so called flat earth evidence posted by levee, not even the work of the levee themselves but random pics gathered from the net with no comparative views and sketchy details, really doesn't stand up against my findings.

Your photographs prove nothing about a flat or round earth...you state: 15 to 25 km...and a altitude of 12 meters, or even lower than that...the pictures show that your camera did not capture the entire details, that is, the lower portion of the ships, as can be seen quite clearly from the messages you posted.

My photographs show that there is no curvature across Lake Ontario and the English Channel.
What are you talking about??  My camera did not capture the lower portion of the ships...until I ascended 12metres, THEN it does.  That's the whole point of the excercise. 

Your photographs (which aren't yours by the way), do not show a flat ocean.  Infact there are no real landmarks on the water that can be used to ascertain if it's curved or flat.  There is a complete absence of reference points.  Infact if you ask me it looks like the city is sitting on a big hill of water.  Which it is.
(http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6167/6165500601_f30062b48b.jpg) (http://www.flickr.com/photos/pitdroidtech/6165500601/)
Untitled (http://www.flickr.com/photos/pitdroidtech/6165500601/) by max_wedge (http://www.flickr.com/people/pitdroidtech/), on Flickr

If there were lines on 'your' image, that we could use to guage if the surface is flat or not, they would look somewhat like this:
(http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6157/6165997406_9df9a2e8f5_z.jpg) (http://www.flickr.com/photos/pitdroidtech/6165997406/)
312939439_ef682e2d8a_z (http://www.flickr.com/photos/pitdroidtech/6165997406/) by max_wedge (http://www.flickr.com/people/pitdroidtech/), on Flickr
Title: Re: Photographic Evidence of Curvature Beyond the Visible Horizon
Post by: momentia on September 20, 2011, 07:02:50 AM

You are dreaming. From those 2 meters right there on the beach of Cap Gris Nez, you CANNOT SEE ANYTHING BELOW 65 METERS, THAT IS WHY I POSTED THE PRECISE FORMULAS. The full view of the White Cliffs of Dover are in sight, no curvature whatsoever across the English Channel, no ascending, no descending slope.

(http://img685.imageshack.us/img685/6801/doverbest.jpg)

2 meters? no. look at the ships, their tallest points are about inline with the horizon, meaning the the photographer was much higher than these tallest points, probably on the top of cap nez gris.
Title: Re: Photographic Evidence of Curvature Beyond the Visible Horizon
Post by: momentia on September 20, 2011, 09:22:10 AM
And you cannot explain this one either:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/j-a-x/129240474/sizes/l/in/photostream/

(http://img12.imageshack.us/img12/3238/toronto34.jpg)

The rooftop of the Sky Dome visible from the St. Catharines beach; I already posted the numbers...you cannot see anything below at least 120 meters from St. Catharines...


That picture is not from the beach. the horizon should be about level with the camera lens in FE and RE.
Those are big rocks, about 3 meters at least. Given that these are well below the horizon, the camera is much higher than 2 meters, probably around 12 meters.

heres a picture that from closer to 2 meters, from a nearby marina about the same distance away from toronto:
(http://mw2.google.com/mw-panoramio/photos/medium/12322536.jpg)
http://www.panoramio.com/photo/12322536

This points to a round earth.
Title: Re: Photographic Evidence of Curvature Beyond the Visible Horizon
Post by: Ski on September 20, 2011, 12:43:02 PM
I can't really add to what's already been said.  Trig, Momentia and Nolhekh covered it perfectly well.  The so called flat earth evidence posted by levee, not even the work of the levee themselves but random pics gathered from the net with no comparative views and sketchy details, really doesn't stand up against my findings.  Might I say too, that my findings aren't definitive.  I need to do more work to build up a comprehensive study of photos of ships on and past the horizon in different conditions to present an unarguable position.  Yet my photos are already far more powerful a visual proof than levee's random net gatherings.
I agree that without firm knowledge of where and at what height these pictures are taken, it makes little sense to draw firm conclusions from them.

Quote
Thanks for your support, I certainly haven't photoshopped anything, but I'm not worried by claims that I have since this evidence can be repeated by any flat earther anytime they want and posted on this thread to counter my evidence. 
I, for one, can see no reason to think you engaged in subterfuge. For one, you seem completely in earnest, and two, the photos demonstrate restoration, which is counter to your argument (and you still have not addressed). If you were going to manipulate the photos, I can only assume that you would edit out all the damning bits.


Title: Re: Photographic Evidence of Curvature Beyond the Visible Horizon
Post by: Ski on September 20, 2011, 12:46:23 PM
Except that our experiment involves things disappearing when viewed from a horizontal angle, which a building does not do.
Which it does do, as demonstrated by the photos posted above.


Quote
You can simulate a building better with a lego brick.  the 2 x 2 kind, which has the same width as a penny.  Preferably red, so that you can be sure if it's really diminishing beyond our minimum ocular resolution.
This is actually a decent idea, which spawns a better one. Perhaps several lego bricks of different colour stacked so that we could judge the height/width the bottom brick(s) should be at distance according to globularism's perspective. Hopefully, I will have time this weekend for such an experiment.
Title: Re: Photographic Evidence of Curvature Beyond the Visible Horizon
Post by: Nolhekh on September 20, 2011, 01:07:31 PM
Actually, by my RE calculations, at 240 metres, your horizon would be 55.3 kilometers away.  The CN Tower, is only 53 kilometers away from Grimsby, making the beach of Toronto well within the visible range of the Vinemount Ridge.  No curvature should be visible in front of Toronto at this height, and thanks to your posted images, we can confirm that this is the case.

Do you understand where you are, and what is being debated here?

We have a distance of 55 km (as I said, we do ascend to 240 meters), and a curvature of 59 meters; that is, an ascending slope, a midpoint curvature of 59 meters, which does not exist. Of course that curvature should be visible, there would not be a way to avoid seeing it; what you want is a round earth with no curvature...those photographs prove clearly that there is no curvature across Lake Ontario.
Actually, because there is no horizon in the background, there is curvature, with toronto sitting right on the top of it.
Quote
However, with Toronto at a distance of roughly 55 km, and with round earth geometry predicting a 55 km distant horizon, these photographs are completely in line with round earth predictions.

No they are not...there is no ascending slope, no midpoint curvature of 59 meters...the surface of Lake Ontario is perfectly flat...that what can be seen quite clearly...
  Without any straight lines in the photograph there's nothing to judge this by.  You may notice that I don't even try, because I know I can't.  Anyone can draw straight or curved lines on the ocean, and it won't prove anything.
Title: Re: Photographic Evidence of Curvature Beyond the Visible Horizon
Post by: Nolhekh on September 20, 2011, 01:27:23 PM
And to demonstrate about the horizon:
(http://i130.photobucket.com/albums/p264/Nojaru/torontohorizon.jpg)
Title: Re: Photographic Evidence of Curvature Beyond the Visible Horizon
Post by: pitdroidtech on September 20, 2011, 09:50:53 PM
I can't really add to what's already been said.  Trig, Momentia and Nolhekh covered it perfectly well.  The so called flat earth evidence posted by levee, not even the work of the levee themselves but random pics gathered from the net with no comparative views and sketchy details, really doesn't stand up against my findings.  Might I say too, that my findings aren't definitive.  I need to do more work to build up a comprehensive study of photos of ships on and past the horizon in different conditions to present an unarguable position.  Yet my photos are already far more powerful a visual proof than levee's random net gatherings.
I agree that without firm knowledge of where and at what height these pictures are taken, it makes little sense to draw firm conclusions from them.
Agreed
Quote
Thanks for your support, I certainly haven't photoshopped anything, but I'm not worried by claims that I have since this evidence can be repeated by any flat earther anytime they want and posted on this thread to counter my evidence. 
I, for one, can see no reason to think you engaged in subterfuge. For one, you seem completely in earnest, and two, the photos demonstrate restoration, which is counter to your argument (and you still have not addressed). If you were going to manipulate the photos, I can only assume that you would edit out all the damning bits.
Perhaps you missed my correction, which is key to understanding the photos.  There is no restoration because the two images in question are taken at different heights. The 8x at sealevel, and the 28x 1.5m (actually, 1.2m and 2.7m respectively if you allow for the height of the telescope, which I had forgotten to allow for). 

If anyone wants to look at the actual distances and height to see if the extra land exposed by the little extra elevation is in keeping with RE (or not), feel free to do so.  Below are images that will assist.  1st, the lat/long markers between myself and the houses on the opposite shore (which are actually Tangalooma Resort).  2nd, an aerial view of the houses and 3rd, the 28x photo of the houses with the altitudes marked in for various locations.  Altitudes can be confirmed from draftlogic, as can distances between exact points - for example between one of the houses in the photo, and my position on Shorncliffe jetty (as indicated in picture 1.)

The hardest part to assess, is where the line of the horizon as viewed in my photos, actually corresponds to the aerial map in terms of which area is visible and which is not.  On picture 2, I have drawn a black line and a white line, which is my estimation of where the horizon obscures the view, ie: everything west (to the left) of the white line and black line is obsured in the 8x (1.2m elevation) and 28x (2.7m elevation) photos respectively.

NOTES:  I am refining my application of experimental process thorugh these firts attempts.  I regret that I have miscalculate elevation on two occsasions, first forgetting that the 28x images were taken on the jetty and the 8x taken on the shore, and then forgetting to factor in the height of the telescope/camera.   I don't feel these issues are detrimental to the experiment, since the factors of difference are small enough that there is still an obvious obscuring of ships/houses.  But to put the issue of telscopic resotration to bed, I need to make more precise measurements and this I will do.

I will conduct more experiments from the shore itself (a definite sealevel), with both 1x, 8x and 28x comparisons, then I will conduct the same experiment from the cliff top.  I will ascertain my exact lat/long at this location and use draftlogic to confirm my altitude.

Picture 1:
(http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6176/6168582666_67f9d82a47_o.jpg) (http://www.flickr.com/photos/pitdroidtech/6168582666/)
p1-moreton bay - shorncliffe to tangalooma (http://www.flickr.com/photos/pitdroidtech/6168582666/) by max_wedge (http://www.flickr.com/people/pitdroidtech/), on Flickr

Picture 2:
(http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6179/6168582722_3311ba3b6c_o.jpg) (http://www.flickr.com/photos/pitdroidtech/6168582722/)
p2 -aerial tangalooma (http://www.flickr.com/photos/pitdroidtech/6168582722/) by max_wedge (http://www.flickr.com/people/pitdroidtech/), on Flickr

Picture 3:
(http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6166/6168046707_4e6f37e239_z.jpg) (http://www.flickr.com/photos/pitdroidtech/6168046707/)
p3 - houses - elevation (http://www.flickr.com/photos/pitdroidtech/6168046707/) by max_wedge (http://www.flickr.com/people/pitdroidtech/), on Flickr





Title: Re: Photographic Evidence of Curvature Beyond the Visible Horizon
Post by: sandokhan on September 21, 2011, 01:47:52 AM
The claims made in the first message posted here, on this thread, are as follows:

A distance of 15 - 25 km

Altitude of the photographer, 2 - 12 meters

A ship on the horizon, and an opposing shoreline


As I have explained already, the reason the lower portion of the ship disappears in the photographs, even from 12 meters, is that the quality of the camera could not capture the entire details.

HERE IS A PHOTOGRAPH, TAKEN RIGHT ON THE BEACH OF CAP GRIS NEZ, A SHIP SEEN AT ABOUT HALF WAY TO DOVER, SOME 15 - 20 KM, EXACTLY AS IN THE PHOTOGRAPHS IN THE FIRST MESSAGE: NO ASCENDING SLOPE, THE SHIP BEING SEEN TOP TO BOTTOM, AND THE WHITE CLIFFS BEING SEEN IN FULL VIEW.

FROM THOSE 3 METERS ON THE BEACH, WE COULD NOT SEE ANYTHING BELOW 60,6 METERS ON A ROUND EARTH.

The original webpage, the photograph SHIPSPOTTING, the photographers right there on the Cap Gris Nez beach:

(http://img684.imageshack.us/img684/2548/cap2q.jpg)

The next photograph, the ship being spotted:

(http://img844.imageshack.us/img844/9423/cap1rp.jpg)

Both photographs in full view:

(http://img827.imageshack.us/img827/8526/doverbest2.jpg)

THE PHOTOGRAPHERS ON THE BEACH OF CAP GRIS NEZ, SOME 2 METERS ABOVE THE WATER, I WILL GIVE YOU 3 METERS, NOTHING COULD BE SEEN UNDER 60,6 METERS ON A ROUND EARTH, BUT:

(http://img685.imageshack.us/img685/6801/doverbest.jpg)

THE FULL DETAILS CAN BE SEEN, FULL HULL OF THE SHIP, FULL VIEW OF THE WHITE CLIFFS OF DOVER, NO ASCENDING OR DESCENDING SLOPES. The White Cliffs of Dover, here: http://www.flickr.com/photos/cybernomad/4047745111/sizes/l/in/photostream/ full view just as in the above photograph...

A PHOTOGRAPH, TAKEN RIGHT ON THE BEACH, DISPROVES AND REFUTES THE CLAIMS MADE IN THE INITIAL MESSAGE POSTED HERE, SAME DISTANCE, 15 - 20 KM...

The discussion on this thread is over; I did not even have to resort to the photographs taken on the beach of Hamilton (65 km to Toronto, Lakeshore Blvd.):

http://www.flickr.com/photos/planetrick/487755017/

http://www.flickr.com/photos/planetrick/487726854/in/photostream

(http://farm1.static.flickr.com/198/487755017_df040421e8_o.jpg)

(http://farm1.static.flickr.com/232/487726854_24a5c0559d_o.jpg)

(both photographs taken right on the beach, as can be seen in the captions, and in the rest of the photos)

or to bring in the heavy artillery, the fact the explosion from Tunguska was seen all the way from London:

http://theflatearthsociety.net/talk/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=1142


PS The photograph from St. Catharines is taken from some 10-12 meters altitude, that is what I have been saying all along; STILL, you could not see the rooftop of the Sky Dome, there would be some 27 meters missing on a round earth from the visual obstacle...

A curvature of 59 meters means that we could barely see the first sign of land, the beach, from Toronto, and an ascending slope, in this photograph, the surface of Lake Ontario is completely flat, we CAN see the details WITHOUT any sign of curvature of 59 meters, please wake up...

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/117/312939439_ef682e2d8a_z.jpg?zz=1
Title: Re: Photographic Evidence of Curvature Beyond the Visible Horizon
Post by: Nolhekh on September 21, 2011, 06:23:03 AM
FROM THOSE 3 METERS ON THE BEACH, WE COULD NOT SEE ANYTHING BELOW 60,6 METERS ON A ROUND EARTH.

Quote
The next photograph, the ship being spotted:

(http://img844.imageshack.us/img844/9423/cap1rp.jpg)

That is not 3 metres high.

Please address this problem before declaring the thread over.
Title: Re: Photographic Evidence of Curvature Beyond the Visible Horizon
Post by: trig on September 21, 2011, 06:32:16 AM
So much work from levee, so little use.

Again, the same photos and the same assumptions about the circumstances in which they were taken. And two more photos that should mean something to someone, but were also gotten from the Internet. Why should we even bother to read all the same argument, again?

If someone cares to read the whole post and give us the highlights, I might find a reason to try and follow the new (or old) argument of this last post. Otherwise, I will have to believe pitdroidtech's argument and supporting evidence, along with the many similar accounts from the last 600 years or so.

And Rowbotham's argument about perspective will have to be demonstrated with something other than "sinking ships", or his argument is just a roundabout: ships appear sinking because of perspective, and perspective is demonstrated with the "sinking ships" effect.
Title: Re: Photographic Evidence of Curvature Beyond the Visible Horizon
Post by: Nolhekh on September 21, 2011, 06:33:37 AM
For those who are interested, these are the formulas I'm using for the earth's curvature. 

distance to horizon = radius of earth * cos-1(radius of earth / distance from earth's centre)
distance from earth's centre = radius + altitude

size of curvature = (radius / cos((distance - distance to horizon) / radius)) - radius
Title: Re: Photographic Evidence of Curvature Beyond the Visible Horizon
Post by: Nolhekh on September 21, 2011, 06:44:42 AM
(http://img827.imageshack.us/img827/8526/doverbest2.jpg)

THE PHOTOGRAPHERS ON THE BEACH OF CAP GRIS NEZ, SOME 2 METERS ABOVE THE WATER, I WILL GIVE YOU 3 METERS, NOTHING COULD BE SEEN UNDER 60,6 METERS ON A ROUND EARTH, BUT:

(photograph that isn't taken from 3 metres)

Le Cap Blanc Nez is about 10 km from Cap Gris.
This puts the horizon at 6.2 km from an altitude of 3 metres.  With Cap gris not much more than 3.8 km further than the horizon, only 1.1 metres would be obscured.

At an altitude of 2 metres, the horizon would be 5 km away, and 2 metres would be obscured.
At precisely sea level, 7.8 metres would be obscured, and that is the maximum possible obscurity.
Title: Re: Photographic Evidence of Curvature Beyond the Visible Horizon
Post by: trig on September 21, 2011, 06:57:15 AM

THE PHOTOGRAPHERS ON THE BEACH OF CAP GRIS NEZ, SOME 2 METERS ABOVE THE WATER, I WILL GIVE YOU 3 METERS, NOTHING COULD BE SEEN UNDER 60,6 METERS ON A ROUND EARTH, BUT:

(photograph that isn't taken from 3 metres)

Le Cap Blanc Nez is about 10 km from Cap Gris.
This puts the horizon at 6.2 km from an altitude of 3 metres.  With Cap gris not much more than 3.8 km further than the horizon, only 1.1 metres would be obscured.

At an altitude of 2 metres, the horizon would be 5 km away, and 2 metres would be obscured.
At precisely sea level, 7.8 metres would be obscured, and that is the maximum possible obscurity.
And a photograph that shows both the foreground a few meters away and the distant background will never give the detail you need to resolve the matter of the curvature of the Earth. Seeing the beach (or any other clearly recognizable feature) a few meters high and a few meters above the sea would be impossible, so this photo gives no information at all. And it is not even accompanied by another photo from which an aspect of the cliffs could be used to make a measurement.

In short, this photo only proves levee's tendency to waste his own time.
Title: Re: Photographic Evidence of Curvature Beyond the Visible Horizon
Post by: Nolhekh on September 21, 2011, 08:00:59 AM
The photographs posted on this thread can be explained very easily; no need to accuse somebody of photoshopping anything...the lower portion of the ships disappear very simply because the camera could not capture all the details at that distance;

So in this photograph then, somehow the largest part of the CN tower can't be captured, but the thin little needle on top can? (I've included a full picture of the CN tower and scaled it so that the distance from the sky pod to the space deck is the same for both, illustrating what part of the CN tower is "unresolvable" to the camera)
(http://i130.photobucket.com/albums/p264/Nojaru/bottomofcntowernotresolved.jpg)
That makes no sense.
Title: Re: Photographic Evidence of Curvature Beyond the Visible Horizon
Post by: General Disarray on September 21, 2011, 08:05:13 AM
Post them a few more times, levee. Maybe they will actually prove your point next time.
Title: Re: Photographic Evidence of Curvature Beyond the Visible Horizon
Post by: pitdroidtech on September 21, 2011, 08:34:25 AM
As I have explained already, the reason the lower portion of the ship disappears in the photographs, even from 12 meters, is that the quality of the camera could not capture the entire details.
I can see more than enough details on the 28x photos.  I can see portholes ffs.  If I can see portholes of 1 foot diameter, then I ought to be able to see 3m or more of missing hull.  Funnily enough, that same missing 3m of hull which I can see when I elevate myself, using the same camera and same equipment.

HERE IS A PHOTOGRAPH, TAKEN RIGHT ON THE BEACH OF CAP GRIS NEZ, A SHIP SEEN AT ABOUT HALF WAY TO DOVER, SOME 15 - 20 KM, EXACTLY AS IN THE PHOTOGRAPHS IN THE FIRST MESSAGE: NO ASCENDING SLOPE, THE SHIP BEING SEEN TOP TO BOTTOM, AND THE WHITE CLIFFS BEING SEEN IN FULL VIEW.

FROM THOSE 3 METERS ON THE BEACH, WE COULD NOT SEE ANYTHING BELOW 60,6 METERS ON A ROUND EARTH.

The original webpage, the photograph SHIPSPOTTING, the photographers right there on the Cap Gris Nez beach:
Looks like they are near the edge of a cliff to me.  I tried to find wstreets photos, to see if they have any corroborating evidence or statement as to their actual height or location, but surprise surprise, their photostream is private.

Your data is collected from various net sources upon which you have made broad assumptions that may or may not be true.  Mine is personally collected and I have provided the relevant details.  I think I will continue to trust my own data ovedr yours if you don't mind.

THE FULL DETAILS CAN BE SEEN, FULL HULL OF THE SHIP, FULL VIEW OF THE WHITE CLIFFS OF DOVER, NO ASCENDING OR DESCENDING SLOPES. The White Cliffs of Dover, here: http://www.flickr.com/photos/cybernomad/4047745111/sizes/l/in/photostream/ full view just as in the above photograph...
That photo is of a completely different location to that in the yellow tinted photo.  Further, the photo was taken from barely 3km away. 


A PHOTOGRAPH, TAKEN RIGHT ON THE BEACH, DISPROVES AND REFUTES THE CLAIMS MADE IN THE INITIAL MESSAGE POSTED HERE, SAME DISTANCE, 15 - 20 KM...
I dispute that it was taken on the beach.  But even if it was, YOU CAN'T SEE THE BASE OF THE CLIFFS (I'm writing in capitals since you seem to prefer that method of communication).
If Nolhekh is right about the distance, then the cliffs 40m cliffs (I assume that's cap gris-nez lighthouse on the cape) should be visible even fromteh beach.

The discussion on this thread is over
Are you a moderator??  If not please refrain from such threats. I have plans for this thread, none of which involve me giving up and going home any time soon.

Hope you enjoy your stay.

Title: Re: Photographic Evidence of Curvature Beyond the Visible Horizon
Post by: Nolhekh on September 21, 2011, 11:57:40 AM
Data for St. Catharines, Lake Ontario, distance to Toronto, 50 km:

2 meters (observer) - 158 meters (visual obstacle)

3 - 150.5

5 - 138

10 - 117.5

My calculations confirm these numbers.
May I add:
12 - 111.4

So between the elevations of 2m - 12m, the amount of water "above" the sky dome should range between 60m to 20m.

Now, I believe you suggested that this is too far for atmospheric refraction to account for?  I say, consider the distance that this 20 - 60m away is.  It's 50 km.  At 50 km, a 20 m difference represents a change of angle of only 0.02 degrees.  A 60 m difference represents only a 0.07 degree change in angle.  These are actually really tiny changes of direction for light to make.  There's no reason for atmospheric refraction to be unable to account for this.
Title: Re: Photographic Evidence of Curvature Beyond the Visible Horizon
Post by: Ski on September 21, 2011, 12:06:24 PM
If we are going to run to the bugaboo of refraction, couldn't we easily say the same thing of the sunken hulls of ships at the horizon? Or any object at the horizon?

"The reason you cannot see the bottom of the ship is refraction. The ship is only 20m tall.  At 50 km, a 20 m difference represents a change of angle of only 0.02 degrees.  A 60 m difference represents only a 0.07 degree change in angle.  These are actually really tiny changes of direction for light to make.  There's no reason for atmospheric refraction to be unable to account for this."

Title: Re: Photographic Evidence of Curvature Beyond the Visible Horizon
Post by: Nolhekh on September 21, 2011, 12:33:18 PM
If we are going to run to the bugaboo of refraction, couldn't we easily say the same thing of the sunken hulls of ships at the horizon? Or any object at the horizon?

"The reason you cannot see the bottom of the ship is refraction. The ship is only 20m tall.  At 50 km, a 20 m difference represents a change of angle of only 0.02 degrees.  A 60 m difference represents only a 0.07 degree change in angle.  These are actually really tiny changes of direction for light to make.  There's no reason for atmospheric refraction to be unable to account for this."

There certainly is no reason for refraction not to work on a flat earth.  Refraction occurs independantly of the earth's shape.  According to RET, refraction causes the sun to be entirely visible, even though it's actually completely set.  No reason why it shouldn't work on a flat earth.  Flat earth has air too, which has variations in temperature, therefore variations in air density, and therefore supports atmospheric refraction.
Title: Re: Photographic Evidence of Curvature Beyond the Visible Horizon
Post by: Ski on September 21, 2011, 01:12:14 PM
I'm not denying the presence of refraction. I'm simply asking if you're going to explain away every observation that doesn't fit with rotundity with refraction. And if you are, are you prepared to to give the zetetic movement the same leeway?
Title: Re: Photographic Evidence of Curvature Beyond the Visible Horizon
Post by: trig on September 21, 2011, 01:39:11 PM
I'm not denying the presence of refraction. I'm simply asking if you're going to explain away every observation that doesn't fit with rotundity with refraction. And if you are, are you prepared to to give the zetetic movement the same leeway?
There is a huge difference between using refraction to account for the whole result in a 6 mile length and using it to account for the whole result in a 25 km length. The most difference you can get in refractive index of the air is from about 1.0002 to 1.0003, so at most it can explain a small angle of refraction, of about 0.03 of a degree maximum, under the most favourable conditions.

That is why only experiments over more than 12 or so miles are really relevant.

It is you who want to create a straw man argument by saying that every result real science has is due to refraction and then killing your own argument.
Title: Re: Photographic Evidence of Curvature Beyond the Visible Horizon
Post by: Nolhekh on September 21, 2011, 01:48:14 PM
I'm not denying the presence of refraction. I'm simply asking if you're going to explain away every observation that doesn't fit with rotundity with refraction. And if you are, are you prepared to to give the zetetic movement the same leeway?
You can speculate freely on explanations for error.  I use refraction as an explanation because it is a phenomenon that is observed independently of the earth's shape, is easily demonstrable and well understood in the scientific fields, and so far has not had to account for very large error in sinking ship photographs.

Do know, that I do speculate for FET as well.  The photos showing a "lowered" horizon can only be explained by bendy light.  Bendy light however is not demonstrated independently of FET, as opposed to refraction and perspective, and it also completely invalidates the bedford levels experiments.  So I lean towards RET because I don't have to use any RET-dependant theories for it, and it doesn't violate my understanding of perspective.
Title: Re: Photographic Evidence of Curvature Beyond the Visible Horizon
Post by: pitdroidtech on September 21, 2011, 04:31:14 PM
On a flat earth, the angle of incidence is smaller so refraction will be less pronounced.  However the affect of refraction would be, rather than to reveal something that is not hidden, to lift up the line of the horizon (and the distant city/ship), just the same as it does on a round earth.  Refraction can explain the revealing of cities below the distant horizon, but cannot explain the hidding of objects behind the horizon.


This is the crux of the matter.  The appearance of cities appearing from behind the horizon is not proof of a flat earth, because there are also instances of cities, and boats, being obscured by horizons.  Refraction explains the former, but not the latter.
Title: Re: Photographic Evidence of Curvature Beyond the Visible Horizon
Post by: Ski on September 21, 2011, 08:15:17 PM
There is nothing about refraction that would preclude light being bent downward or even sideways.
Title: Re: Photographic Evidence of Curvature Beyond the Visible Horizon
Post by: Nolhekh on September 21, 2011, 09:22:23 PM
There is nothing about refraction that would preclude light being bent downward or even sideways.
Correct.  And bending downwards is what is happening in Levee's photo showing only 90 m of curvature when perspective would have at least 110.
Title: Re: Photographic Evidence of Curvature Beyond the Visible Horizon
Post by: momentia on September 21, 2011, 09:47:02 PM
The real problem in this thread, and any in the future where someone takes telephoto pictures of ships at varying altitudes is that, no matter how much magnification, 3x, 8x, 28x, 100x, Nx, FE'ers will always claim that the zoom is not good enough at the lower altitudes to restore the entire view.

They do not understand the notion of angular resolution, which is exactly what rowbotham's perspective is. They will just say that lower lines converge before higher lines do, but never give an explanation why this is so. They completely ignore the principle that supposedly gives rise to this perspective.

So, I ask you FE, about how magnification is needed to restore 5 meters of hull (an estimate of how much is hidden in the 28x photo) 25 km away from a height of 1.5 m?

Please show your calculations. I showed mine earlier in the thread, and found that 28x was well more than enough to restore the entire hull. (which it did not.) So don't tell me to do it myself, because I did, and found RE to be the only satisfactory answer. For FE to exist, my calculations must be wrong.

If you cannot do this very simple problem, FE has some (more) serious issues that should be resolved before further debating.
Title: Re: Photographic Evidence of Curvature Beyond the Visible Horizon
Post by: pitdroidtech on September 21, 2011, 11:40:43 PM
You are quite right Momentia.  I haven't spent a lot of time trying to dispel the perspective theory in this thread, because quite frankly I see it akin to someone arguing that large cannonballs only appear to fall at the same rate as little ones because our eyes can't keep up.  It's quite absurd.

My focus in this thread is to build up a weight of visual evidence showing objects hidden by the horizon.  Discussion of refraction is valid and I'd like to see this line of reasoning pursued, since the laws of refraction are well studied and understood.  We ought to be able to show eliminate refraction as an explanation of the boats hulls being hidden, then suddenly revealed at height.

Perhaps the fact that there are inferior mirages present in my photos, which indicates a warm layer of air near the surface and a cooler layer of air above, has some relevance.  This is the opposite of that which causes the superior mirage which explains Toronto being more visible than it should be - in Ontario the air is cooler close to the surface and warmer above - the opposite of what is common in Australia.

Title: Re: Photographic Evidence of Curvature Beyond the Visible Horizon
Post by: Ski on September 22, 2011, 12:02:20 AM
There is nothing about refraction that would preclude light being bent downward or even sideways.
Correct.  And bending downwards is what is happening in Levee's photo showing only 90 m of curvature when perspective would have at least 110.

My point is the raising of the horizon by refraction is just as possible as the lowering of it. It's extremely disheartening to see evidence discarded everytime it fails to agree with globularist preconceptions.
Title: Re: Photographic Evidence of Curvature Beyond the Visible Horizon
Post by: sandokhan on September 22, 2011, 01:24:26 AM
The photographers are right on the beach...next to it, in front of it...I will you some 3 meters (actually as we can see clearly they are some 2 meters above sea level, we can see the waves next to the shoreline, and everybody knows how the beach which can be found between Cap Gris Nez and Cap Blanc Nez looks like)...from those 3 meters you could not see anything under 60,6 meters from the other side of the English Channel...why would they go somewhere else, if they are right there, with the cameras ready to take the pictures?

(http://img827.imageshack.us/img827/8526/doverbest2.jpg)

The caption reads clearly: SHIPSPOTTING, that is, they are right there on the beach, ready and willing to capture that ship which sails across the English Channel...

Here is a photograph from 45 meters altitude (on top of Cap Gris Nez):

(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/27/France_manche_vue_dover.JPG)

The contour of the White Cliffs of Dover across from Cap Gris Nez have a sine wave form...the contour across from Cap Blanc Nez are more straight, exactly as in the following photograph:

(http://img685.imageshack.us/img685/6801/doverbest.jpg)

Everything looks pretty clear, that is why I said the discussion is over; we have a photograph which clearly shows the full details of the hull of that ship, and the full view of the cliffs from Dover, no curvature whatsoever.

The photographers could not go somewhere else to take the picture, since they are right there on the beach; does it make any sense to any of you? And if not, why bring here such nonsense? The caption is pretty clear, and reads shipspotting, and next picture does exactly that, the photographers are on the beach...what will it take for you to understand that there is no curvature across the English Channel?


PS At ten meters in altitude, we would be already on top of a 2 story building, with a visual obstacle of 117,5 meters, and we add the 5 meter portion of the Sky Dome that can be seen...refraction won't save you...even if we go to 12 meters, the 16 meters in difference could not be accounted for by refraction...please give up such silly arguments...

Title: Re: Photographic Evidence of Curvature Beyond the Visible Horizon
Post by: pitdroidtech on September 22, 2011, 02:50:22 AM
The photographers are right on the beach...next to it, in front of it...I will you some 3 meters (actually as we can see clearly they are some 2 meters above sea level, we can see the waves next to the shoreline, and everybody knows how the beach which can be found between Cap Gris Nez and Cap Blanc Nez looks like)...from those 3 meters you could not see anything under 60,6 meters from the other side of the English Channel...why would they go somewhere else, if they are right there, with the cameras ready to take the pictures?
The White Cliffs of dover are up to 105m high in places.

The caption reads clearly: SHIPSPOTTING, that is, they are right there on the beach, ready and willing to capture that ship which sails across the English Channel...
Look, I'm not familiar with the exact location of this photo, but it looks like they are on top of a cliff. If looks like a cliff because there is no visible shore line.  There is no beach, the waves disappear under the foliage as if the area the photographers are standing is raised compared to the shore. 

If the earth is round, a clifftop would be a better place for ship spotting than the beach, so if the ship spotters believe in a round earth, they may well choose a clifftop to setup their equipment.  BTW, wstreet's images are not available on flickr anymore, so I can't verify the source of these images for myself or any details. 

Look at this, a direct comparison of wstreet's shipspotting photo with another shot of cap gris-nez - this shot is taken from the exact same location, it's quite obvious the location both photos were taken is on top of this cliff. 

(http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2673/3925086273_bce8a7b281_b.jpg) (http://www.flickr.com/photos/35212077@N06/3925086273/)
Cap Blanc Nez - plage de Wissant (http://www.flickr.com/photos/35212077@N06/3925086273/) by giseledusud (http://www.flickr.com/people/35212077@N06/), on Flickr

Same size comparison - clear that they are standing on a cliff top.
(http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6160/6171402201_ba2e7dda72_o.jpg) (http://www.flickr.com/photos/pitdroidtech/6171402201/)
Cap Gris-Nez Comparison (http://www.flickr.com/photos/pitdroidtech/6171402201/) by max_wedge (http://www.flickr.com/people/pitdroidtech/), on Flickr

It appears there is also a good chance that the yellow tinted photo with the silhoutted ships was taken from the same location, so that pretty much shoots down your argument, especially since the white cliffs of dover can infact be as high as 105m.

The quality of your submission is extremely poor.  You provide no relevant details, claim black silhoutted ships as "full details of the hull of the ships", cherry pick your data from the net to make your case look better; you have basically failed to make any case whatsoever, and you have the audacity to claim the discussion is finished?  I suppose you deserve 10/10 for persistance (but 2/10 for effort).   Until you present better quality data I'm afraid your input to this thread is rather meaningless.  But feel free, I'm not going to stop you.

Title: Re: Photographic Evidence of Curvature Beyond the Visible Horizon
Post by: pitdroidtech on September 22, 2011, 04:01:30 AM
There is nothing about refraction that would preclude light being bent downward or even sideways.
Correct.  And bending downwards is what is happening in Levee's photo showing only 90 m of curvature when perspective would have at least 110.

My point is the raising of the horizon by refraction is just as possible as the lowering of it.
You may possibly be correct in this.

The problem is that the disappearing of hulls always is restored by elevation, and always removed by removing elevation, regardless of the temperature inversion in affect.


Title: Re: Photographic Evidence of Curvature Beyond the Visible Horizon
Post by: pitdroidtech on September 22, 2011, 04:39:27 AM
The views of Toronto, no elevation given by Levee.

Here's a picture with actual details:

Elevation, 182m, distance to horizon 48.2km, distance to Toronto beach 57km (using the photographer's supplied map, google maps and http://veloroutes.org/elevation/?location=mountain+rd+ontario&units=m and this http://www.ringbell.co.uk/info/hdist.htm),
(http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4022/5128450627_97df288c86_z.jpg) (http://www.flickr.com/photos/redroom_studios/5128450627/)
Toronto and the Lake (http://www.flickr.com/photos/redroom_studios/5128450627/) by Redroom Studios (http://www.flickr.com/people/redroom_studios/), on Flickr

So I'm not sure how to calculate how much far below the horizon Toronto beach would have to be, but I calculated you'd need another 60 metres elevation to see the beach at Toronto.
Bremner Blvd has an elevation of 77m, the sky dome (Rogers Centre) is 31 stories high, at 3.3m per story that's 102m, making the top of the sky dome a total of 179m above sea level.

Pretty much make the Sky Dome well and truly visible given the details of this photo.

What Levee needs to do is apply the same level of analysis to the photos he provides, otherwise he's just shooting blanks.
Title: Re: Photographic Evidence of Curvature Beyond the Visible Horizon
Post by: pitdroidtech on September 22, 2011, 05:07:16 AM
I judged my sky dome height based on 3.3m per story the official "conversion", however according to www.rogerscentre.com the highest point of the sky dome is 86m.

So my figure above of 179m should be corrected to 163m.
Title: Re: Photographic Evidence of Curvature Beyond the Visible Horizon
Post by: Nolhekh on September 22, 2011, 06:04:32 AM
There is nothing about refraction that would preclude light being bent downward or even sideways.
Correct.  And bending downwards is what is happening in Levee's photo showing only 90 m of curvature when perspective would have at least 110.

My point is the raising of the horizon by refraction is just as possible as the lowering of it. It's extremely disheartening to see evidence discarded everytime it fails to agree with globularist preconceptions.

Consider the Grimsby photograph taken from an altitude of  240 m.  The horizon exists in the photograph right where it should based on RET.  I find it very hard to believe an upward refraction by chance, allowed this one photograph to match RET exactly.

another thing about refraction, weather is hardly ever constant, and changes in weather, and temperature are what accounts for refraction.  A more scientific approach would be to take more photos from this position over the course of several days, or better yet, get a theodolite and measure the angular position of the horizon, to see within what range the horizon shifts.
Title: Re: Photographic Evidence of Curvature Beyond the Visible Horizon
Post by: pitdroidtech on September 22, 2011, 06:28:49 AM

another thing about refraction, weather is hardly ever constant, and changes in weather, and temperature are what accounts for refraction.  A more scientific approach would be to take more photos from this position over the course of several days, or better yet, get a theodolite and measure the angular position of the horizon, to see within what range the horizon shifts.
This is a good point, however I don't have a theodolite available.  It's not a bad idea though to get a definite fix on the horizon - perhaps by marking a spot for my tripod on the boardwalk (chipping out three small holes for the tripod, then using compass and level to align the camera.  Not sure if this would be accurate enough, but I reckon it would be a good ballpark.  Then I'd need to get weather reports on temperature inversions to cross reference against the photos.  I'll see what I can do.

Either way, I do definitely plan to take more regular photos, but getting time is a problem.  Stangely enough I have a life!

Title: Re: Photographic Evidence of Curvature Beyond the Visible Horizon
Post by: Nolhekh on September 22, 2011, 06:52:20 AM
The photographers are right on the beach...next to it, in front of it...I will you some 3 meters (actually as we can see clearly they are some 2 meters above sea level, we can see the waves next to the shoreline, and everybody knows how the beach which can be found between Cap Gris Nez and Cap Blanc Nez looks like)...from those 3 meters you could not see anything under 60,6 meters from the other side of the English Channel...why would they go somewhere else, if they are right there, with the cameras ready to take the pictures?

(http://img827.imageshack.us/img827/8526/doverbest2.jpg)

The caption reads clearly: SHIPSPOTTING, that is, they are right there on the beach, ready and willing to capture that ship which sails across the English Channel...

Those waves do look awefully small next to those people.  They really only look like ripples.

Quote
Here is a photograph from 45 meters altitude (on top of Cap Gris Nez):

(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/27/France_manche_vue_dover.JPG)

The contour of the White Cliffs of Dover across from Cap Gris Nez have a sine wave form...the contour across from Cap Blanc Nez are more straight, exactly as in the following photograph:
Not sure the shape of the white cliffs was ever in dispute.
Quote

(http://img685.imageshack.us/img685/6801/doverbest.jpg)

Everything looks pretty clear, that is why I said the discussion is over; we have a photograph which clearly shows the full details of the hull of that ship, and the full view of the cliffs from Dover, no curvature whatsoever.

The photographers could not go somewhere else to take the picture, since they are right there on the beach; does it make any sense to any of you? And if not, why bring here such nonsense? The caption is pretty clear, and reads shipspotting, and next picture does exactly that, the photographers are on the beach...what will it take for you to understand that there is no curvature across the English Channel?

  They're not on the beach.  And as for that last photo, it is definitely not on the beach.  Just look where the bottom of the cliffs cut through that further ship. Proof that they're not on the beach. Those ships are definitely more than a few metres tall.  The photographers are pretty high up.

Quote
PS At ten meters in altitude, we would be already on top of a 2 story building, with a visual obstacle of 117,5 meters, and we add the 5 meter portion of the Sky Dome that can be seen...refraction won't save you...even if we go to 12 meters, the 16 meters in difference could not be accounted for by refraction...please give up such silly arguments...
Silly?  Who's the one arguing shift in light direction using units of length?



another thing about refraction, weather is hardly ever constant, and changes in weather, and temperature are what accounts for refraction.  A more scientific approach would be to take more photos from this position over the course of several days, or better yet, get a theodolite and measure the angular position of the horizon, to see within what range the horizon shifts.
This is a good point, however I don't have a theodolite available.  It's not a bad idea though to get a definite fix on the horizon - perhaps by marking a spot for my tripod on the boardwalk (chipping out three small holes for the tripod, then using compass and level to align the camera.  Not sure if this would be accurate enough, but I reckon it would be a good ballpark.  Then I'd need to get weather reports on temperature inversions to cross reference against the photos.  I'll see what I can do.

Either way, I do definitely plan to take more regular photos, but getting time is a problem.  Stangely enough I have a life!

If you can get the internal angles of your telescope's field of view for different magnifications, I can calculate angular position of elements within the view, as long as you can provide the exact direction the telescope is pointing.
Title: Re: Photographic Evidence of Curvature Beyond the Visible Horizon
Post by: Ski on September 22, 2011, 07:17:31 AM
Those waved do look awefully small next to those people.  They really only look like ripples.
In my opinion, the waves look much more defined than the waves in the photo taken from the cliff. But the scene looks similar enough to inspire doubt.
Title: Re: Photographic Evidence of Curvature Beyond the Visible Horizon
Post by: Nolhekh on September 22, 2011, 07:51:09 AM
Those waved do look awefully small next to those people.  They really only look like ripples.
In my opinion, the waves look much more defined than the waves in the photo taken from the cliff. But the scene looks similar enough to inspire doubt.
Defined or not, they're still tiny.  Anyway, without actually being able to see precisely where the water is breaking on the shore, it's impossible to know how high they are.  the photo of the ships and white cliffs itself is really our only clue as to elevation.
Title: Re: Photographic Evidence of Curvature Beyond the Visible Horizon
Post by: trig on September 22, 2011, 06:46:13 PM
Those waved do look awefully small next to those people.  They really only look like ripples.
In my opinion, the waves look much more defined than the waves in the photo taken from the cliff. But the scene looks similar enough to inspire doubt.
Defined or not, they're still tiny.  Anyway, without actually being able to see precisely where the water is breaking on the shore, it's impossible to know how high they are.  the photo of the ships and white cliffs itself is really our only clue as to elevation.
Exactly. The point is not that we know the photo was taken from a high altitude, but that we really don't know the first thing about these photos, or the others levee shows. We do not know who took them, from where, with what lens, or how much cropping he did.

We only know of a circular argument where the photos are used to demonstrate a flat Earth but a flat Earth is assumed to guess what the conditions were when the photo was taken.

Waves are notoriously difficult to judge because of the fractal nature of the waves. Cliffs also look a lot alike whether you are seeing them close by or far away. Objectively judging all photos in this thread you have to take those taken by pitdroidtech and discard all others.

Without information about the conditions when the photos were taken it does not matter if we are using them to prove a flat Earth, concave Earth or the existence of seas in Venus.
Title: Re: Photographic Evidence of Curvature Beyond the Visible Horizon
Post by: sandokhan on September 23, 2011, 01:25:54 AM
Shipspotting means that the photographers are right there on that beach, ready to take the picture. They did not go to Cap Gris Nez, or to Cap Blanc Nez (as a matter of fact, Cap Blanc Nez is the part of the photograph marked with that small rectangle). They are right there on the beach.

To what altitude do you want to go to understand that, no matter where we go, the surface of the sea is completely flat?

Let us go to 23 meters, that is those photographers are on top of a seven story building. On a round earth we should see an ascending slope, a midpoint visual obstacle of 22,4 meters, and that ship being part of an ascending/descending slope.

No such thing can be seen in the photograph we are debating here. Where do you want to go from here? To 45 meters? Even from there, the curvature would equal half of the altitude, and we should see an ascending slope, but nothing of the kind exists there, in the photograph.

In this photograph, there is no curvature whatsoever, we can see the full view of the White Cliffs from Dover, no matter to what height we go to:

(http://img685.imageshack.us/img685/6801/doverbest.jpg)

No ascending slope, no midpoint visual obstacle, no descending slope, NOTHING, just a perfectly flat shape of the surface of the sea.

And the shape of the cliffs indicate clearly where we are: midway between Cap Gris Nez and Cap Blanc Nez, right on the beach.

Even if we go to some 23 or 45 meters in altitude, that photograph show a flat surface of the sea, no curvature whatsoever.


Here are the large size photographs from Toronto:

(http://farm1.static.flickr.com/117/312939439_ef682e2d8a_o.jpg)

Niagara escarpment means some 170 - 180 meters, but I will go to 240 meters for you. No curvature whatsoever, no slopes...

The next one was made at Beamer Falls Conservation Area, it is just 45 meters in height, but I will go to 240 meters again:

(http://farm1.static.flickr.com/29/53037827_fdb83b96bd_b.jpg)

No curvature whatsoever, measuring 59 meters...


(http://www.weatherandsky.com/Mirages/TorontoDay.jpg)


From the same spot, at night, using a reflector telescope:

(http://img713.imageshack.us/img713/5295/thor2h.jpg)

http://www.weatherandsky.com/Mirages/Toronto2.jpg


FULL DETAILS OF THE SHORELINE OF TORONTO, NO CURVATURE WHATSOEVER.


From Grimsby, again:

(http://www.weatherandsky.com/Mirages/May2006/IMG_1477.JPG)

There isn't a single centimeter of curvature over lake Ontario...


We now go to Etobicoke, some 6 miles from Toronto, no 1,8 meter curvature, no ascending slope:


(http://farm1.static.flickr.com/232/508992681_f797741b8a_o.jpg)
(http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2001/2955330790_7bb3738133_b.jpg)
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3281/2402347338_cf9a9ee2cd_b.jpg)


We go to Port Credit, some 14 km from Toronto, no 4 meter curvature whatsoever:


(http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2012/1571369829_dada8e886e_b.jpg)
(http://farm1.static.flickr.com/253/454343806_8776df8b25_o.jpg)


Let us go over to Tarifa, strait of Gibraltar.

Here is the new web address for the Islamic History of Europe (part I):



Between 2:56 si 3:00 the author shows us the spanish beach and points towards the african coastline

Between 3:02 si 3:07 we can see clearly that there is no curvature all the way to Morocco; moreover, if we use the full screen option, we will see the waves splashing onto the opposing beach/shore...this is actually a closeup taken, again, from that beach...

Between 3:19 - 3:22, WE CAN SEE THE WAVES SPLASHING ONTO THE OPPOSING BEACH, EVEN WITH THE AUTHOR STANDING ON THE SPANISH SHORELINE, RIGHT NEXT TO THE STRAIT OF GIBRALTAR; on a round earth, we would see an ascending slope, with a midpoint curvature of 3.31 meters.

Between 3:43 si 3:45, the same thing, zero curvature...full screen option, the waves splashing onto the opposing beach/shore, WITH THE AUTHOR STADING RIGHT THERE ON THE SPANISH BEACH.


The Barbarians, here are the details, where we can see very clearly that there is no ascending slope, no midpoint curvature:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-811260411880444286&q=barbarians+terry+jones&total=22&start=10&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=1#

Between 38:28 - 38:35, we can see clearly ABSOLUTELY NO CURVATURE ALL THE WAY TO MOROCCO...the surface of the strait is completely flat...

And a photograph shot from the same place:

(http://farm1.static.flickr.com/55/130948289_44854d63fa_b.jpg)


None of you can explain the fact that the buildings from Milwaukee and Racine can be seen from Holland, 128 km distance:
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=50707.msg1245136#msg1245136

'As twilight deepened, there were more and more lights.'

Bringing out a pair of binoculars, Kanis said he was able to make out the shape of some buildings.

'With the binoculars we could make out three different communities,' Kanis said.

According to one Coast Guard crewman, it is possible to see city lights across the lake at very specific times.

Currently a Coast Guard crewman stationed in Holland, Todd Reed has worked on the east side of Lake Michigan for 30 years and said he's been able to see lights across the lake at least a dozen times.


THE CURVATURE FOR 128 KM IS 321 METERS.

THE HOUSE OF THOSE RESIDENTS IS LOCATED RIGHT NEXT TO THE LAKE, BUT LET US INVESTIGATE VARIOUS ALTITUDES, FOR THE SAKE OF DISCUSSION.

h = 3 meters BD = 1163 METERS

h = 5 meters BD = 1129 METERS

h = 10 meters BD = 1068 METERS

h = 20 meters BD = 984 METERS

h = 50 meters BD = 827.6 METERS

h = 100 meters BD = 667.6 METERS

The highest building in Milwaukee has a height of 183 meters, the difference from h = 5 meters in altitude being 946 meters, and those residents saw the buildings from THREE DIFFERENT COMMUNITIES, two of which have buildings whose heights measure way under 183 meters.

Therefore, the only way those buildings could be seen, given the 128 km distance, would be if the surface of Lake Michigan is completely flat (you can also use the above formula on atmospheric refraction to see how impossible it is to see shapes of buildings over a 128 km distance).

THE TALLEST BUILDING IN RACINE IS THE COUNTY COURTHOUSE, 40 METERS; IT WOULD BE ABSOLUTELY IMPOSSIBLE TO SEE THIS COURTHOUSE FROM 128 KM DISTANCE, FROM HOLLAND.





The complete demonstration that there is no such thing as attractive gravity (without attractive gravity, round earth theory amounts to nothing):

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=39823.msg1000783#msg1000783
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=39823.msg1002693#msg1002693
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=39823.msg1003411#msg1003411
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=39823.msg1003454#msg1003454
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=39823.msg1003916#msg1003916
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=39823.msg1004780#msg1004780
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=39823.msg1004781#msg1004781
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=39823.msg1004830#msg1004830
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=39823.msg1005453#msg1005453
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=39823.msg1005454#msg1005454


It is very easy to prove the Earth is flat...the problem we have here is the disastrous main FAQ, with two science-fiction plots posted as true science (UA acceleration and infinite earth hypotheses), and ludicrous data for the Sun diameter (32 miles) and the Sun-Earth distance (3000 miles).
Title: Re: Photographic Evidence of Curvature Beyond the Visible Horizon
Post by: sandokhan on September 23, 2011, 01:51:47 AM
Now, we will increase the distances to 600 km, 1000 km, and even 7000 km.

TUNGUSKA, JUNE 30, 7:20 AM, 1908

First, let us carefully find out the exact facts about the trajectory of the ball lightning sent by Nikola Tesla from his laboratory:

The exceptional research done by T.R. LeMaire shows that the ball lightning produced by Nikola Tesla was carefully directioned to the Tunguska River, in order not to endanger lives:

T.R. LeMaire, a science writer, continues this thought, by suggesting "The Tunguska blast's timing seems too fortuitous for an accident" (LeMaire 1980). He claims that a five-hour delay would make the target of destruction St. Petersburg, adding that a tiny change of course in space would have devastated populated areas of China or India.

Can we assume that the 'pilot' chose a cloudless day with excellent visibility from aloft to assure a safe drop? American Military strategy called for identical weather conditions; for a perfect strike on Hiroshima's industrial heart, the Enola Gay's bombardier was forbidden to release through a cloud cover: he had to see the target below. To maximize blast destruction, minimize radiation perils: the bomb was set to explode at a high altitude rather than against the ground. Similarly, the Siberian missile detonated high in the air, reducing or even eliminating fallout hazard (LeMaire 1980).

LeMaire maintains the "accident-explanation is untenable" because "the flaming object was being expertly navigated" using Lake Baikal as a reference point. Indeed, Lake Baikal is an ideal aerial navigation reference point being 400 miles long and about 35 miles wide. LeMaire's description of the course of the Tunguska object lends credence to the thought of expert navigation:

The body approached from the south, but when about 140 miles from the explosion point, while over Kezhma, it abruptly changed course to the east. Two hundred and fifty miles later, while above Preobrazhenka, it reversed its heading toward the west. It exploded above the taiga at 60º55' N, 101º57' E (LeMaire 1980).

Tesla ball lightning experiments:

http://www.cheniere.org/books/part1/teslaweapons.htm
http://www.cheniere.org/books/part1/starting%20pages.htm


The body could not have been either a comet or an asteroid:

The explosion could not have been caused by a comet:

In 1983, astronomer Zdenek Sekanina published a paper criticizing the comet hypothesis. He pointed out that a body composed of cometary material, travelling through the atmosphere along such a shallow trajectory, ought to have disintegrated, whereas the Tunguska body apparently remained intact into the lower atmosphere.

During the 1990s, Italian researchers extracted resin from the core of the trees in the area of impact, to examine trapped particles that were present during the 1908 event. They found high levels material commonly found in rocky asteroids and rarely found in comets.

And not by a meteorite:

The chief difficulty in the asteroid hypothesis is that a stony object should have produced a large crater where it struck the ground, but no such crater has been found.

Fesenkov (1962) claims, "According to all evidence, this meteorite moved around the Sun in a retrograde direction, which is impossible for typical meteorites...." Fesenkov notes that meteorites rarely hit the earth in the morning, because the morning side faces forward in the planet's orbit. Usually the meteorite overtakes the earth from behind, on the evening side.


THE EXPLOSION, WHICH TOOK PLACE AT 7 KM, WAS SEEN FROM THE SHORE OF LAKE BAIKAL (600 KM DISTANCE), IRKUTSK (1000 KM), AND FROM LONDON, STOCKHOLM AND ANTWERP.

The distance from London to Tunguska is 7000 km, with a visual obstacle of 7463 km.

The visual obstacle from Lake Baikal (435 meters altitude) is 21,7 km.

The visual obstacle from Irkutsk is 67,5 km.


The visual limit for the explosion that could be seen on a round earth would be some 400 km (8,3 km visual obstacle).

On a round earth there is no way this explosion could have been seen from Lake Baikal, Irkutsk, or London, given the immense, colossal visual obstacle, measuring, for London, some 7463 km.


Here are facts and proofs.

The inhabitants of Central Siberia saw the fall and explosion of the meteorite over an area with a radius of 600-1000 km.

http://www.icr.org/research/index/researchp_sa_r05/

(http://static.icr.org/i/research/papers/sa/sa-r05a.jpg)

The first report of the explosion was in the Irkutsk paper dated July 2, 1908, published two days after the explosion:

...the peasants saw a body shining very brightly (too bright for the naked eye) with a bluish-white light.... The body was in the form of 'a pipe', i.e. cylindrical. The sky was cloudless, except that low down on the horizon, in the direction in which this glowing body was observed, a small dark cloud was noticed. It was hot and dry and when the shining body approached the ground (which was covered with forest at this point) it seemed to be pulverized, and in its place a loud crash, not like thunder, but as if from the fall of large stones or from gunfire was heard. All the buildings shook and at the same time a forked tongue of flames broke through the cloud.

All the inhabitants of the village ran out into the street in panic. The old women wept, everyone thought that the end of the world was approaching.


Instanteniously, the flash of the explosion was seen in London, Stockholm, Antwerp and other european cities:

In London on the night of June 30th the air-glow illuminates the northern quadrant of the heavens so brightly that the Times can be read at midnight. In Antwerp the glare of what looks like a huge bonfire rises twenty degrees above the northern horizon, and the sweep second hands of stopwatches are clearly visible at one a.m. In Stockholm, photographers find they can take pictures out of doors without need of cumbersome flash apparatus at any time of night from June 30th to July 3rd.

In Berlin, the New York Times of July 3rd reported unusual colors in the evening skies thought to be Northern Lights:
"Remarkable lights were observed in the northern heavens ... bright diffused white and yellow illumination continuing through the night until it disappears at dawn."


Some people saw massive, silvery clouds and brilliant, colored sunsets on the horizon, whereas others witnessed luminescent skies at night—Londoners, for instance, could plainly read newsprint at midnight without artificial lights.


HERE ARE THE LETTERS THAT APPEARED IN THE LONDON TIMES, 1 - 4 JULY 1908:

A woman north of London wrote the London Times that on midnight of July 1st the sky glowed so brightly it was possible to read large print inside her house. A meteorological observer in England recounted on the nights of June 30th and July 1st:

A strong orange yellow light became visible in the north and northeast... causing an undue prolongation of twilight lasting to daybreak on July 1st...There was a complete absence of scintillation or flickering, and no tendency for the formation of streamers, or a luminous arch, characteristic of auroral phenomena... Twilight on both of these night was prolonged to daybreak, and there was no real darkness.

The report that most closely ties these strange cosmic happenings with Tesla’s power transmission scheme is that while the sky was aglow with this eerie light it was possible to clearly see ships at sea for miles in the middle of the night.

“To the Editor of the Times.”
“Sir,--Struck with the unusual brightness of the heavens, the band of golfers staying here strolled towards the links at 11 o’clock last evening in order that they might obtain an uninterrupted view of the phenomenon. Looking northwards across the sea they found that the sky had the appearance of a dying sunset of exquisite beauty. This not only lasted but actually grew both in extent and intensity till 2:30 this morning, when driving clouds from the East obliterated the gorgeous colouring. I myself was aroused from sleep at 1:15, and so strong was the light at this hour that I could read a book by it in my chamber quite comfortably. At 1:45 the whole sky, N. and N.-E., was a delicate salmon pink, and the birds began their matutinal song. No doubt others will have noticed this phenomenon, but as Brancaster holds an almost unique position in facing north to the sea, we who are staying here had the best possible view of it.
Yours faithfully,
Holcombe Ingleby.
Dormy House Club, Brancaster, July 1” (1908 )


http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/ciencia/esp_ciencia_tunguska02.htm

http://www.nuforc.org/GNTungus.html


WHAT IS MOST AMAZING ABOUT THIS NEXT LETTER, IS THAT THE INHABITANT OF LONDON SAW EVEN THE TRAJECTORY OF THE BALL LIGHTNING, SOME 10 MINUTES BEFORE THE EXPLOSION ITSELF (7:20 AM Tunguska time, 0:20 am London Time, that is, the interval 0:00 - 0:15 am)


“TO THE EDITOR OF THE TIMES.”
“Sir,--I should be interested in hearing whether others of your readers observed the strange light in the sky which was seen here last night by my sister and myself. I do not know when it first appeared; we saw it between 12 o’clock (midnight) and 12:15 a.m. It was in the northeast and of a bright flame-colour like the light of sunrise or sunset. The sky, for some distance above the light, which appeared to be on the horizon, was blue as in the daytime, with bands of light cloud of a pinkish colour floating across it at intervals. Only the brightest stars could be seen in any part of the sky, though it was an almost cloudless night. It was possible to read large print indoors, and the hands of the clock in my room were quite distinct. An hour later, at about 1:30 a.m., the room was quite light, as if it had been day; the light in the sky was then more dispersed and was a fainter yellow. The whole effect was that of a night in Norway at about this time of year. I am in the habit of watching the sky, and have noticed the amount of light indoors at different hours of the night several times in the last fortnight. I have never at any time seen anything the least like this in England, and it would be interesting if any one would explain the cause of so unusual a sight.
Yours faithfully,
Katharine Stephen.
Godmanchester, Huntingdon, July 1.”


On a round earth, NOTHING COULD BE SEEN BEYOND SOME 400 KM.

The explosion itself was seen from Lake Baikal, Irkutsk, Berlin, Stockholm and even London.

The perfect, most extraordinary proof that the surface of the Earth is actually flat, the one I have been using to prove, each and every time, the fact that we live on a flat earth.


This is the way to prove the Earth is flat; serious, heavy-duty research, with scientific, provable facts to go along; the official, main FAQ is a sham, answering none of the issues the round earth supporters present here in these threads...

Title: Re: Photographic Evidence of Curvature Beyond the Visible Horizon
Post by: trig on September 23, 2011, 05:08:14 AM
This kind of post really belongs in the True Believers board. I am pretty sure almost everybody will look at the endless show of photos from Internet without a single detail about the photographers, and will look at the claim that shipspotting is done from the beach, not from a vantage point, and will answer:

tl;dr
Title: Re: Photographic Evidence of Curvature Beyond the Visible Horizon
Post by: trig on September 23, 2011, 05:14:19 AM
PS. I did happen to read the last paragraph:
Quote
This is the way to prove the Earth is flat; serious, heavy-duty research, with scientific, provable facts to go along; the official, main FAQ is a sham, answering none of the issues the round earth supporters present here in these threads...
Can someone get me an emoticon for "Rolling On the Floor, Laughing Until I Peed in My Pants" ?
Title: Re: Photographic Evidence of Curvature Beyond the Visible Horizon
Post by: NTheGreat on September 23, 2011, 05:21:54 AM
Now, we will increase the distances to 600 km, 1000 km, and even 7000 km.

...

This is the way to prove the Earth is flat; serious, heavy-duty research, with scientific, provable facts to go along; the official, main FAQ is a sham, answering none of the issues the round earth supporters present here in these threads...

This is quite a post...

I suppose I see two main problems reading though it.
Title: Re: Photographic Evidence of Curvature Beyond the Visible Horizon
Post by: trig on September 23, 2011, 07:05:18 AM
Now, we will increase the distances to 600 km, 1000 km, and even 7000 km.

...

This is the way to prove the Earth is flat; serious, heavy-duty research, with scientific, provable facts to go along; the official, main FAQ is a sham, answering none of the issues the round earth supporters present here in these threads...

This is quite a post...

I suppose I see two main problems reading though it.
  • The events all happening in Europe all seem to be referring to a continuous glow, not an explosion. One of them even mentions it lasting to daybreak. It hardly seems these reports refer to the sudden explosion that occurred over Tunguska
  • Why was this only observed around Europe? If the Earth was flat, shouldn't there be reports of this event coming in from thousands of kilometers away in all directions?
I believe Tunguska is mentioned here only because it is a favorite subject for Internet conspiracy theorists and crackpot theorists. I did not even check if this time the explosion was attributed to Nicola Tesla, another favorite of the same people.

One thing is clear: since the Tunguska Event caught everyone by surprise, both good witnesses and crackpots reported wildly differing accounts that were not verified for decades. The explosion site was not even found for almost 20 years, as I recall. So you can find a witness account for just about anything among the Tunguska witnesses. Plus, we have no direct evidence of any events like this one, so it is an enormous challenge to find the physics involved.

We don't know if the event was caused by a meteor or a comet, or a dense, solid meteor or a loosely held, soft meteor. We don't know how big it was, we can only compare it to known meteor craters that we did not see exploding either. We don't have the means to make a comparable explosion, so we can only speculate, and the conspiracy theorists love this.
Title: Re: Photographic Evidence of Curvature Beyond the Visible Horizon
Post by: Ski on September 23, 2011, 07:28:14 AM
This kind of post really belongs in the True Believers board. I am pretty sure almost everybody will look at the endless show of photos from Internet without a single detail about the photographers, and will look at the claim that shipspotting is done from the beach, not from a vantage point, and will answer:

tl;dr

This is the kind of post that belongs in the globularist Hall of Shame. You asked for photos, and he provided several obviously taken at sea level. Yet the mighty trig, true to form, cannot look past his own conceit to view them or read about it. Having lost the sacred ability to doubt, you now cannot even stand the hint of iconoclasm challenging your own pathetic world view. You're an evangelist of error of the worst kind; so cocksure in your faith that any challenge must be met with derision and scorn. Small wonder John Davis has decided to be done with you.
If the posts are too long for you to read, then I suggest you find another haunt, or simply remain silent and allow the rest of us to have a conversation without your interference and irrelevant ranting. 
Title: Re: Photographic Evidence of Curvature Beyond the Visible Horizon
Post by: pitdroidtech on September 23, 2011, 07:58:56 AM
levee, when I said you aren't putting any effort into your research, your last two posts aren't any better.

A series of replies have cast legitimate doubt over your first attempts, and you haven't answered these, instead you throw even more sub standard examples at us.  Nolhekh pointed out that in the yellow photo the base of the cliffs is visible above the farthest ship.  This uncategorically proves that the photograph was taken from atleast 3 metres higher altitude than the deck of the ship. That's for a round earth.  For a flat eath you would have to be much higher to see that much between the deck of the boat and the cliff base.

This is basic geometry, that you obviously don't understand. 

Your other main claim is that the sea doesn't "look" curved.  Fortunately we don't base science on what something looks like.  Things can look quite different than what we expect sometimes.  In Toronto for example, there is 60 meteres height of curvature between Mountain Road Ontario and Toronto beach.  There is 57km between the two locations. 

Plot a line between the two locations and factor in 60 metres elevation - I did this in google sketchup, here's the result.  You can hardly tell there is a curve at all.  Infact if it weren't for the jagged line (because the computer doesn't have enough pixels to display the curve at this scale) you'd think it was straight.  The angle of the slope is roughly 0.12 degrees from the horizontal.  That my friend is why you can't see the curvature.  It may seem like you ought to be able to observe curvature in this example, until you look closely at the distances involved and realise that the actual curvature is so slight as to be hardly noticeable.

(http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6173/6174791489_e17629e642_o.jpg) (http://www.flickr.com/photos/pitdroidtech/6174791489/)
Scale of curvature Toronto to Mountain Road (http://www.flickr.com/photos/pitdroidtech/6174791489/) by max_wedge (http://www.flickr.com/people/pitdroidtech/), on Flickr

The top line represents the curved surface of the earth, the bottom line represent a straight, and very slight, slope downwards from Mountain road to Toronto beach.  The vertical line on the right represents CN Tower (Height about 550m) (ignore the green line on the left)
Title: Re: Photographic Evidence of Curvature Beyond the Visible Horizon
Post by: Nolhekh on September 23, 2011, 08:32:48 AM
Shipspotting means that the photographers are right there on that beach, ready to take the picture. They did not go to Cap Gris Nez, or to Cap Blanc Nez (as a matter of fact, Cap Blanc Nez is the part of the photograph marked with that small rectangle). They are right there on the beach.
Whatever shipspotting means, they are not at the beach.

Quote
To what altitude do you want to go to understand that, no matter where we go, the surface of the sea is completely flat?

Let us go to 23 meters, that is those photographers are on top of a seven story building. On a round earth we should see an ascending slope, a midpoint visual obstacle of 22,4 meters, and that ship being part of an ascending/descending slope.

No such thing can be seen in the photograph we are debating here. Where do you want to go from here? To 45 meters? Even from there, the curvature would equal half of the altitude, and we should see an ascending slope, but nothing of the kind exists there, in the photograph.
  Why would we go to any other altitude than the one that the photo's being taken at?  That would skew calculations and produce false results.  And how are you able to go to 45 meters and assume that the curvature is any different, unless you actually have a photo that does this.

Quote
In this photograph, there is no curvature whatsoever, we can see the full view of the White Cliffs from Dover, no matter to what height we go to:
  What do you mean "no matter what height?"  It's one photograph and you can't use one photograph to represent many elevations.

Quote
(http://img685.imageshack.us/img685/6801/doverbest.jpg)

No ascending slope, no midpoint visual obstacle, no descending slope, NOTHING, just a perfectly flat shape of the surface of the sea.
Here's where your lack of understanding of this stuff shows: "no midpoint visual obstacle."  You're assuming that some visual obstacle has to exist for there to be curvature.  But the visual obstacle doesn't have to be midpoint, and sometimes it's directly underneath what we're looking at, as is the case with the Grimsby shot of toronto, with toronto sitting on the "obstacle" instead of behind it.

Quote
And the shape of the cliffs indicate clearly where we are: midway between Cap Gris Nez and Cap Blanc Nez, right on the beach.
  and the place where the shore/horizon cuts through the ships indicates that the photo was not taken on the beach,  although without knowing how tall those ships are we have no way of knowing how high we are.  We can guess no less than 10 metres, but we could be anywhere as high as 30m
Quote

Even if we go to some 23 or 45 meters in altitude, that photograph show a flat surface of the sea, no curvature whatsoever.
How do you know if you don't have the exact altitude of the photograph?
Quote

Here are the large size photographs from Toronto:

(http://farm1.static.flickr.com/117/312939439_ef682e2d8a_o.jpg)

Niagara escarpment means some 170 - 180 meters, but I will go to 240 meters for you.
no you will not because you can't. Plus, I don't need you to. [/quote] No curvature whatsoever, no slopes... 
Quote
  From 170 metres your horizon is 46.6 km away, and toronto is - what do you know only 2 km further.  So again, a photo where toronto is sitting on top of your "obstacle" and the entire visible area of lake ontario is your ascending slope.  your descending slope will always be hidden by the ascending slope, so there's no real reason to expect to see it.

The next one was made at Beamer Falls Conservation Area, it is just 45 meters in height, but I will go to 240 meters [/quote] no need, although I haven't been able to find Beamer Falls on Google Earth, so I can't find any distance with which to confirm or deny this argument
Quote
again:

(http://farm1.static.flickr.com/29/53037827_fdb83b96bd_b.jpg)

No curvature whatsoever, measuring 59 meters...


(http://www.weatherandsky.com/Mirages/TorontoDay.jpg)


From the same spot, at night, using a reflector telescope:

(http://img713.imageshack.us/img713/5295/thor2h.jpg)
  Now this is interesting.  The buildings in front of the Sky Dome appear to be shorter in the reflector telescope than in the wider photograph.  This is contrary to your claim that a reflector telescope can restore detail.  Or it could be a case where the telescope shot is not taken from the same spot as you claimed. 
Quote
http://www.weatherandsky.com/Mirages/Toronto2.jpg


FULL DETAILS OF THE SHORELINE OF TORONTO, NO CURVATURE WHATSOEVER.


From Grimsby, again:

(http://www.weatherandsky.com/Mirages/May2006/IMG_1477.JPG)

There isn't a single centimeter of curvature over lake Ontario...
  If this is from the same altitude as the last Grimsby photo, then my last assessment still holds.  The city is sitting on top of the curvature, instead of behind it.
Quote


We now go to Etobicoke, some 6 miles from Toronto, no 1,8 meter curvature, no ascending slope:


(http://farm1.static.flickr.com/232/508992681_f797741b8a_o.jpg)
(http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2001/2955330790_7bb3738133_b.jpg)
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3281/2402347338_cf9a9ee2cd_b.jpg)
Now you've completely failed to provide elevation.  I don't get why you think there should be 1.8 meters of curvature if you don't have an elevation, especially since each photo seems to be taken from a different height.  However it is interesting that you claim to not be able to see 1.8 meters when 1.8 metres seems to be less than one pixel.
Quote

We go to Port Credit, some 14 km from Toronto, no 4 meter curvature whatsoever:


(http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2012/1571369829_dada8e886e_b.jpg)
(http://farm1.static.flickr.com/253/454343806_8776df8b25_o.jpg)
4 metres in the first photo is only 2 pixels.

I shall finish this later.  I must go now.
Title: Re: Photographic Evidence of Curvature Beyond the Visible Horizon
Post by: pitdroidtech on September 23, 2011, 09:17:50 AM
This kind of post really belongs in the True Believers board. I am pretty sure almost everybody will look at the endless show of photos from Internet without a single detail about the photographers, and will look at the claim that shipspotting is done from the beach, not from a vantage point, and will answer:

tl;dr

This is the kind of post that belongs in the globularist Hall of Shame. You asked for photos, and he provided several obviously taken at sea level. Yet the mighty trig, true to form, cannot look past his own conceit to view them or read about it. Having lost the sacred ability to doubt, you now cannot even stand the hint of iconoclasm challenging your own pathetic world view. You're an evangelist of error of the worst kind; so cocksure in your faith that any challenge must be met with derision and scorn. Small wonder John Davis has decided to be done with you.
If the posts are too long for you to read, then I suggest you find another haunt, or simply remain silent and allow the rest of us to have a conversation without your interference and irrelevant ranting.
But that's just it; the pictures aren't obviously taken from sea level. 

Then when he does show some pictures taken from sea level, they are useless as examples of his argument.  For example
Quote
We now go to Etobicoke, some 6 miles from Toronto, no 1,8 meter curvature, no ascending slope
Um.. it's barely on the horizon, and no curvature is visible because the distance is FAR too short for the slight curvature to be actually visible.

Quote
We go to Port Credit, some 14 km from Toronto, no 4 meter curvature whatsoever:

The shoreline in front of The CN Tower and skydome, going by a straight line drawn from the cn tower and the middle point of the skydome, is Marilyn Bell Park.  The location of the only rocky outcrops such as those displayed in these two photos, in the straight line drawn from the CN Tower, is Hunter Bay Park West.  That's the distance between the old barge and Marilyn Bell Park the first visible shoreline beyond the barge.  The CN Tower is a further 6km.

Also if you look at the section of land just above the deck of the barge, probably the airport or possibly the Police Marina on West Island, another couple of km back from Marilyn Bell Park, you'll notice that the buildings disappear into the water (ie: they are behind the horizon):

(http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6169/6175610034_325494d86f_o.jpg) (http://www.flickr.com/photos/pitdroidtech/6175610034/)
20110924-004 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/pitdroidtech/6175610034/) by max_wedge (http://www.flickr.com/people/pitdroidtech/), on Flickr

In other words, the pictures of the old barge are entirely consistant with RET. 

I really see no reason why we should continue analysing Levee's contributions.  I have chosen at random examples he has provided and shown in each instance how he has interpeted the evidence with a FET bias, failing to accurately assess the true meaning of the images.


Title: Re: Photographic Evidence of Curvature Beyond the Visible Horizon
Post by: pitdroidtech on September 23, 2011, 09:42:57 AM
An aerial view to demonstrate the positions of the barge and the CN Tower:
(http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6153/6175136823_b874d172b9_o.jpg) (http://www.flickr.com/photos/pitdroidtech/6175136823/)
20110924-007 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/pitdroidtech/6175136823/) by max_wedge (http://www.flickr.com/people/pitdroidtech/), on Flickr

The barge is moored just under the words "Hunter Bay Park West" on the aerial view.  It's not at that location when the google earth photo was taken.  I couldn't find the barge anywhere on the coast between Port Credit and Toronto.

(http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2012/1571369829_dada8e886e_b.jpg)
(http://farm1.static.flickr.com/253/454343806_8776df8b25_o.jpg)
Title: Re: Photographic Evidence of Curvature Beyond the Visible Horizon
Post by: Ski on September 23, 2011, 10:33:33 AM
The barge is at J.C. Saddington Park. Not at Humber Bay. The straight line distance is almost exactly 19 km.

Without knowing the local topography, it would be difficult to say that the building is sinking below the horizon -- especially as the trees on the other side of the barge look precisely the way one expects.
Title: Re: Photographic Evidence of Curvature Beyond the Visible Horizon
Post by: momentia on September 23, 2011, 12:36:27 PM
The barge is at J.C. Saddington Park. Not at Humber Bay. The straight line distance is almost exactly 19 km.

Without knowing the local topography, it would be difficult to say that the building is sinking below the horizon -- especially as the trees on the other side of the barge look precisely the way one expects.

The trees look they are growing out of the water, but the angular resolution is rather low on the photo compared to the curvature, so it is hard to see.
Here's a better picture, taken from Niagara on the lake, with two other CN tower pictures (from closer) superimposed next to it.
(http://i55.tinypic.com/2uzdliv.png)

http://rachelynne.files.wordpress.com/2010/04/cntower.jpg
http://v7.cache3.c.bigcache.googleapis.com/static.panoramio.com/photos/original/24233985.jpg?redirect_counter=1
http://www.torontoonthecheap.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/06/cn-tower-istock.jpg

As you can clearly see, lots of the tower is hidden behind the horizon, demonstrating a curved earth.

And no, Rowbothams perspective does not apply here, the angular resolution is well more than enough to see the bottom of the tower.
Title: Re: Photographic Evidence of Curvature Beyond the Visible Horizon
Post by: pitdroidtech on September 23, 2011, 09:11:14 PM
The barge is at J.C. Saddington Park. Not at Humber Bay. The straight line distance is almost exactly 19 km.

Without knowing the local topography, it would be difficult to say that the building is sinking below the horizon -- especially as the trees on the other side of the barge look precisely the way one expects.
I stand corrected, the barge is at J.C. Saddington Park.  My retarded internet was so slow last night, zooming in and out along the coastline was so painful, I'm not surprised I missed it!  Thanks for the correction.

Btw, from the northern tip of the barge, to the Marilyn Bell Park, is 15km, not 19km.  The angle of a straight line direct from the CN Tower to the barge at J.C. Saddington Park compared to my estimation of Humber Bay Park is only about 5-8 degrees so I stand by my assessment of the photo in all details except the distance.

And as you can see from the photo I outlined of the "shoreline" of Toronto visible above the deck of the barge, the buildings are either built on the water, or are behind the horizon.  This shows that the photographer had to be considerably higher than the deck of the barge itself to see this detail. Well on a flat earth anyway.  According to Levee there would be a slope upwards on a round earth, which would explain the photographer being at sea level and able to see this detail.  Of course, we don't see a slope upwards.  What we see (but can't detect because it is too slight) is a curved slope downwards.

Also if you look at the greenery on the shoreline to the left of the barge, it is green from the sea upwards, you cannot see the rocky shore that is in front of the Police Marina.  However let's assume that it is not the police marina, in which case it has to be the Marilyn Bell Park area, which is further west.    In this photo (click the link then click the image for a large view) http://www.panoramio.com/photo/24815040 the greenery is too far away from the CN Tower to be the Police Marina.  The Marilyn Bell Park has a rock wall water break protecting it, as well as a road running along the foreshore.  This is completely invisible in the photos.

So either way there is definite drop off.

The problem with Levee's data is that it is piecemeal.  It's taken at different locations and times, different elevations, and is cherry picked to show what he thinks it shows, but other data is ignored because it shows the opposite of what he wants it to show.

Title: Re: Photographic Evidence of Curvature Beyond the Visible Horizon
Post by: pitdroidtech on September 23, 2011, 09:23:14 PM
Another thing that Levee does, which is completely unprofessional and inexcusable in my view (as a photographer) is the posting of completely unreferenced photos of other people's work.  There is no credit given or in lieu of credit a link to the original work.  If I discovered someone using my photos and not crediting me with the work or providing a link back to the source, I would be very unhappy.  Photos are not free of copyright just because they are posted on a public website.  And they are not free to be used just because the use is non-profit.  Since we are making an assumption that a photographer will be okay with us using their photos to demonstrate a point on a non-profit forum, the VERY LEAST we can do is provide a link to the image.

It's also unscientific to post random pictures without any details or a source link from which some details may be obtained.

Title: Re: Photographic Evidence of Curvature Beyond the Visible Horizon
Post by: Ski on September 23, 2011, 11:16:01 PM
Btw, from the northern tip of the barge, to the Marilyn Bell Park, is 15km, not 19km. 
I measured from the park itself where the pictures were taken to the CN Tower, which was my mistake. I have not remeasured it, but will assume you are correct for the moment.

Quote
The Marilyn Bell Park has a rock wall water break protecting it, as well as a road running along the foreshore.  This is completely invisible in the photos.
We will use the picture you linked to as you are comfortable with it's origin, I presume. It is also better suited to our purpose, for we can see a number of recognizable landmarks.
In fact, I can see the jetty below the trees in the higher quality photo you have linked to. It is not very high, so we cannot say that we are seeing only a small part of it.
(http://mymsc.ca/Features/200610/ColleenShields1.jpg)
Niagra is not visible in this photo above, but I don't expect either of us thought it would be.

Nor is there a large embankment hiding below the water (or impersonating the jetty):
(http://media.thestar.topscms.com/images/62/f3/6f27ecd94d0ca26fa77134681c55.jpeg)

The road and bank:

(http://t1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcT2xFNbtPzPdjQif8bE-QEXYMLZC0xeIzHm4HtX0taau1eQgELq)


Further, I can see a sailboat whose hull appears sunken in the distance, but not at the horizon -- indicating that perhaps the hull has become indiscernible; it is certainly not behind a hill of water.
In addition, we can see what looks to be the entire facade of part of the Liberty Grand. We can see what appears to be nearly the entire 91 meters of the WindShare project above the trees.
Title: Re: Photographic Evidence of Curvature Beyond the Visible Horizon
Post by: sandokhan on September 24, 2011, 02:40:26 AM
If this is from the same altitude as the last Grimsby photo, then my last assessment still holds.  The city is sitting on top of the curvature, instead of behind it.

From 170 metres your horizon is 46.6 km away, and toronto is - what do you know only 2 km further.  So again, a photo where toronto is sitting on top of your "obstacle" and the entire visible area of lake ontario is your ascending slope.  your descending slope will always be hidden by the ascending slope, so there's no real reason to expect to see it.

The 59 meter curvature should be visible immediately on a round earth...please reword your last lousy attempts at an explanation, and try again...in those photographs, the surface of the lake is completely flat.

The zoom-in with the reflector telescope shows that the shoreline of Toronto and the small island in front of it are visible without any curvature to obscure them...that was the point...all photographs show no curvature whatsoever over Lake Ontario...


Even if we ascend to some 45 meters on that beach in France, we could not miss out the 22,4 meter curvature, that ship is not part of an ascending or a descending slope...

How would the water of the sea stay curved, without attracting gravity? Please think.


The County Courthouse in Racine could not be seen over a distance of 128 km, from Holland, nor any building from Milwaukee.

We have two videos from Spain, no curvature whatsoever over the strait of Gibraltar.


Please research the subject of ball lightning; the flash of the explosion was directed toward Europe, toward the west. The glow is the activation of the aether around the area of the explosion...do not pretend you do not understand...nobody could see any glow, any flash, outside of an area of 400 km...the curvature of a round earth would forbid any further visibility.

The flash/glow/trajectory was clearly seen all the way from London; given the colossal, immense visual obstacle of 7463 km, this view would have been impossible on a round earth. The curvature of a round earth would forbid any visibility from 600 km distance (lake Baikal), 1000 km distance (Irkutsk), or from a 7000 km distance (London), PERIOD.


For the other comments, please research the photographs taken by the Soviet Academy of Science, right there at Tunguska...

(http://www.teslasociety.com/pictures/tunguska/tunguska2.jpg)

(http://lifeboat.com/images/tunguska_event.jpg)


Title: Re: Photographic Evidence of Curvature Beyond the Visible Horizon
Post by: pitdroidtech on September 24, 2011, 02:48:27 AM

In addition, we can see what looks to be the entire facade of part of the Liberty Grand. We can see what appears to be nearly the entire 91 meters of the WindShare project above the trees.
Thanks, this is actually something useful and reasonable. 

re: the picture I linked to (by shanhitex) and the jetty under the trees, I don't believe there is enough visual information in the photo to be clear of this, in other words I think it is inconclusive.  It is however a good photo for getting our bearings.  Even more so that you have pointed out the Windshare project and the Liberty Grand so I will look at these two constructions.

However, we don't really know how high the photographer was when they took this photo.  The camera could be easily 4.5m from sea level, going by the fact we can see water above the deck line of the barge. That puts the horizon at 7.5km so something 7.5km further away again will have it's lower 4.5m obscured.  Also looking at user submitted photos of the JC Saddington Park, and the line tracking back from the CN Tower, it actually seems quite plausible that the photographer was between 4m-5m (including his eyesight height above ground).

The windshare tower is actually 65m, only the blade at it's full extension eaches 91m.  Looking at streetview shots of the area surounding the base of the tower, and user submitted photos, it wouldn't be unreasonable to expect 3-4m or even more of altitude at the base of the tower.  So only a metre or two may actually be obscured.  From the photo it's impossible to say this isn't case.
Title: Re: Photographic Evidence of Curvature Beyond the Visible Horizon
Post by: pitdroidtech on September 24, 2011, 04:01:31 AM
The 59 meter curvature should be visible immediately on a round earth...please reword your last lousy attempts at an explanation, and try again...in those photographs, the surface of the lake is completely flat.

Quote
The zoom-in with the reflector telescope shows that the shoreline of Toronto and the small island in front of it are visible without any curvature to obscure them...that was the point...all photographs show no curvature whatsoever over Lake Ontario...

Quote
Even if we ascend to some 45 meters on that beach in France, we could not miss out the 22,4 meter curvature, that ship is not part of an ascending or a descending slope...

Quote
We have two videos from Spain, no curvature whatsoever over the strait of Gibraltar.

what is it about the fact that the vertical component of the curve is so small (1000 times smaller in fact) compared to the distance that it appears flat, is not understandable to you?

Even other FE'ers accept that if the earth was round, you wouldn't be able to tell by looking at it; that's why Rowbotham conducted his experiments. 

Quote
How would the water of the sea stay curved, without attracting gravity? Please think.
Read and understand the theory of gravity before you argue against it.    Gravity pulls equally towards the centre of the sphere  on all points at the surface of the sphere.  Hence water is always pulled to the centre of the Earth, ie, downwards.  I can't believe I'm explaining this to you...?!?!?

Please think.

Quote
The County Courthouse in Racine could not be seen over a distance of 128 km, from Holland, nor any building from Milwaukee.
That's right, it could not be seen.  Only on 12 days out of every 30 years could it be seen.  This has been explained by unusual air inversion events which lead to a large degree of refraction.  If it was actually possible to see that far in normal conditions, then every single day it would be visible.

Quote
Please research the subject of ball lightning; the flash of the explosion was directed toward Europe, toward the west. The glow is the activation of the aether around the area of the explosion...do not pretend you do not understand...nobody could see any glow, any flash, outside of an area of 400 km...the curvature of a round earth would forbid any further visibility.


If you read the eyewitness reports with an open mind, rather thana bias that leads you to see everything only the way you want to see it, you would have noticed this:
Quote
It also produced fluctuations in atmospheric pressure strong enough to be detected in Great Britain. Over the next few days, night skies in Asia and Europe were aglow
If the skies were aglow for days afterwards, how could it be the flash of the explosion? 
Quote
it has been theorized that this was due to light passing through high-altitude ice particles formed at extremely cold temperatures, a phenomenon that occurred when the Space Shuttle re-entered the Earth's atmosphere
So sorry but magical Aether is not the only possible explanation.

Quote
The flash/glow/trajectory was clearly seen all the way from London; given the colossal, immense visual obstacle of 7463 km, this view would have been impossible on a round earth. The curvature of a round earth would forbid any visibility from 600 km distance (lake Baikal), 1000 km distance (Irkutsk), or from a 7000 km distance (London), PERIOD.
The glow was carried through the atmosphere due to refraction by ice crystals.  The glow from volcanoes, forest fires and many other phenomenon are known to be seen from great distances.  Have you never seen a glow of a light from around the corner? The point is that the event itself, was not visible.  Only the after effects of the event, that spread through the atmosphere, were visible.

Quote
For the other comments, please research the photographs taken by the Soviet Academy of Science, right there at Tunguska...
I'm not arguing that the event happened.  Of course it did.  But there is no evidence to suggest it was ball lightning beyond spooky Tesla conspiracies.
Title: Re: Photographic Evidence of Curvature Beyond the Visible Horizon
Post by: Nolhekh on September 24, 2011, 07:29:48 AM
If this is from the same altitude as the last Grimsby photo, then my last assessment still holds.  The city is sitting on top of the curvature, instead of behind it.

From 170 metres your horizon is 46.6 km away, and toronto is - what do you know only 2 km further.  So again, a photo where toronto is sitting on top of your "obstacle" and the entire visible area of lake ontario is your ascending slope.  your descending slope will always be hidden by the ascending slope, so there's no real reason to expect to see it.

The 59 meter curvature should be visible immediately on a round earth...please reword your last lousy attempts at an explanation, and try again...in those photographs, the surface of the lake is completely flat.
Why should I reword anything.  My math does not produce a 59 metre curvature for this scenario.   Show where my attempts are lousy.  If you don't, I have no reason to think you understand anything I'm trying to tell you.  the fact is that round earth theory does not predict any significant obstacle in this case.  And the fact that there isn't makes this photograph completely in support of RET.
Title: Re: Photographic Evidence of Curvature Beyond the Visible Horizon
Post by: Ski on September 24, 2011, 01:21:14 PM
Thanks, this is actually something useful and reasonable.

re: the picture I linked to (by shanhitex) and the jetty under the trees, I don't believe there is enough visual information in the photo to be clear of this, in other words I think it is inconclusive.
Well, there is something that appears to be rock below the trees. Something is visible beneath the trees -- can we agree on that? What could this be then?
(http://t1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcT2xFNbtPzPdjQif8bE-QEXYMLZC0xeIzHm4HtX0taau1eQgELq)



Quote
However, we don't really know how high the photographer was when they took this photo.  The camera could be easily 4.5m from sea level, going by the fact we can see water above the deck line of the barge.
The deck of the barge looks rather lower than that, but we could argue ad infinitum.

I don't think rotundity would allow one to see anything below the trees.
I think, in fact, that one can see the base of the WindShare tower below the trees, in addition to the jetty. This should not be possible.

Title: Re: Photographic Evidence of Curvature Beyond the Visible Horizon
Post by: Tom Bishop on September 24, 2011, 01:41:38 PM
Ski is correct in everything he says. I suggest that the roundies consult his post history for truth.
Title: Re: Photographic Evidence of Curvature Beyond the Visible Horizon
Post by: Nolhekh on September 24, 2011, 02:35:19 PM
Ski is correct in everything he says. I suggest that the roundies consult his post history for truth.

Fortunately for RET, Ski has not claimed anything as absolute fact, unlike what you just did. 

It's dangerous to assume someone is correct in the search for truth.  One must always put another's word up to scrutiny to determine if it is logically sound and represents reality, otherwise you could miss the truth entirely.  If you feel that there is some logical issue with an argument I make, point out that issue.  Don't brush it off as lousy or baseless, or trust one person's word over another.
Title: Re: Photographic Evidence of Curvature Beyond the Visible Horizon
Post by: PizzaPlanet on September 24, 2011, 05:13:36 PM
It's dangerous to assume someone is correct in the search for truth.  One must always put another's word up to scrutiny to determine if it is logically sound and represents reality, otherwise you could miss the truth entirely.  If you feel that there is some logical issue with an argument I make, point out that issue.  Don't brush it off as lousy or baseless, or trust one person's word over another.
This is very true, and both FE'ers and RE'ers should pay attention to this post.

>mfw I just called a post about how you're not supposed to assume people correct correct
Title: Re: Photographic Evidence of Curvature Beyond the Visible Horizon
Post by: pitdroidtech on September 24, 2011, 08:15:37 PM

The deck of the barge looks rather lower than that, but we could argue ad infinitum.
Agreed.  But I think plus or minus a couple of metres isn't an unreasonable margin for error given the uncertainties of various elements of the photo.

I don't think rotundity would allow one to see anything below the trees.
I think, in fact, that one can see the base of the WindShare tower below the trees, in addition to the jetty. This should not be possible.
(http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6172/6179506601_6a9e489c71_o.jpg) (http://www.flickr.com/photos/pitdroidtech/6179506601/)
20110925-004 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/pitdroidtech/6179506601/) by max_wedge (http://www.flickr.com/people/pitdroidtech/), on Flickr
Title: Re: Photographic Evidence of Curvature Beyond the Visible Horizon
Post by: Tom Bishop on September 25, 2011, 12:52:29 AM
Ski is correct in everything he says. I suggest that the roundies consult his post history for truth.

Fortunately for RET, Ski has not claimed anything as absolute fact, unlike what you just did. 

It's dangerous to assume someone is correct in the search for truth.  One must always put another's word up to scrutiny to determine if it is logically sound and represents reality, otherwise you could miss the truth entirely.  If you feel that there is some logical issue with an argument I make, point out that issue.  Don't brush it off as lousy or baseless, or trust one person's word over another.

Ski is closer to the truth than any RE'er and most FE'ers. You guys would do well to study his posting history.
Title: Re: Photographic Evidence of Curvature Beyond the Visible Horizon
Post by: Ski on September 25, 2011, 01:59:17 AM

The deck of the barge looks rather lower than that, but we could argue ad infinitum.
Agreed.  But I think plus or minus a couple of metres isn't an unreasonable margin for error given the uncertainties of various elements of the photo.

Well, if the picture is taken at 2 meters above the surface (a much better estimate of the barge deck), the expected rotund-horizon is only 5km away. If we use your very generous 5 meters, the expected rotund-horizon extends to 8km. That's a remarkable margin of error for the photo.

Quote
(http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6172/6179506601_6a9e489c71_o.jpg) (http://www.flickr.com/photos/pitdroidtech/6179506601/)
20110925-004 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/pitdroidtech/6179506601/) by max_wedge (http://www.flickr.com/people/pitdroidtech/), on Flickr
I dislike the two extremely wide-angle views you post above; can you find any others? I will look on the morrow as it is rather late. I don't know why we would expect to see the boardwalk/road. The railing is less than knee high, and I'm not sure the picture magnification allows us to see it.

Even with your generous allotment of 4-5 meters, the jetty should not be visible. It should be at minimum 4ms below the horizon. Given your (unsubstantiated) assumption that the tower base is 4 meters above the water, the base of the tower should not be at all visible -- even given the generous initial terms. Certainly nothing below it.
I suspect that if we tried we could deduce the exact location of the tower base by measuring pixels of the blades (25m) and subtracting from the tower(65m).
There is another white pixelated spot to the left of the tower -- is it possible that the white spot below the trees is not the base as you implied above? This scenario is certainly worse for the case of rotundity, but I cannot state it is true at the moment.
At any rate, thank you for digging up the street view photos. I will try to find some undistorted views of the same area tomorrow.
Title: Re: Photographic Evidence of Curvature Beyond the Visible Horizon
Post by: pitdroidtech on September 25, 2011, 02:09:25 AM
Ski is correct in everything he says. I suggest that the roundies consult his post history for truth.
You could detect the sarcasm from Jupiter......
Title: Re: Photographic Evidence of Curvature Beyond the Visible Horizon
Post by: pitdroidtech on September 25, 2011, 09:20:14 AM

The deck of the barge looks rather lower than that, but we could argue ad infinitum.
Agreed.  But I think plus or minus a couple of metres isn't an unreasonable margin for error given the uncertainties of various elements of the photo.

Well, if the picture is taken at 2 meters above the surface (a much better estimate of the barge deck), the expected rotund-horizon is only 5km away. If we use your very generous 5 meters, the expected rotund-horizon extends to 8km. That's a remarkable margin of error for the photo.

Quote
(http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6172/6179506601_6a9e489c71_o.jpg) (http://www.flickr.com/photos/pitdroidtech/6179506601/)
20110925-004 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/pitdroidtech/6179506601/) by max_wedge (http://www.flickr.com/people/pitdroidtech/), on Flickr
I dislike the two extremely wide-angle views you post above; can you find any others? I will look on the morrow as it is rather late. I don't know why we would expect to see the boardwalk/road. The railing is less than knee high, and I'm not sure the picture magnification allows us to see it.

Even with your generous allotment of 4-5 meters, the jetty should not be visible. It should be at minimum 4ms below the horizon. Given your (unsubstantiated) assumption that the tower base is 4 meters above the water, the base of the tower should not be at all visible -- even given the generous initial terms. Certainly nothing below it.
I suspect that if we tried we could deduce the exact location of the tower base by measuring pixels of the blades (25m) and subtracting from the tower(65m).
There is another white pixelated spot to the left of the tower -- is it possible that the white spot below the trees is not the base as you implied above? This scenario is certainly worse for the case of rotundity, but I cannot state it is true at the moment.
At any rate, thank you for digging up the street view photos. I will try to find some undistorted views of the same area tomorrow.

You are putting words in my mouth.  You said you could see the base of the tower not I.  The only visible data in the picture when viewed close up that could possibly be the base of the tower is that one white pixel. I assumed since you thought you could see the base of the tower that you meant this pixel.  I personally don't think it's the base of the tower.  I think the base of the tower is hidden below the horizon.  As far as I am concerned the white pixel could be just about anything, including the blurry visible remains of a boat or some such.

Regarding the wide angle google 'streetview' shots of the boardwalk and the hill that the base of the tower is on, these are all I could find.  But it is quite clear from these that the base of the tower is atleast as high as the roof of the white van on the left of the field of view.  It's also obvious, especially when you look at various angles using  streetview, that there is atleast another metre from the road down boardwalk.   You can see from the metre high fence along the boardwalk that it is most definitely lower than the road surface.  There is a further probably half metre (if not more) from the board walk to the waterline.  So even if the white van is only 2.5m high, that's a total of 4m to the base of the tower from the shoreline.

These conclusions are not unreasonable at all.  Infact I believe these are generous to your argument.  I would say perhaps 4.5-5 metres.

Regarding the view of the barge.  I've used two standards to gauge a rough estimation of the height of the deck (see the cut and pasted sections on the image below).  Twice the height of a man is a fair estimation.  That's about 3.5m, two men of 5.7 feet in height.  The horizon is a little further again.  The photographer is further back, so has to rise a little more than 3.5 m off the ground, lets say 3.7m.  That puts the horizon at 6.9km.

(http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6172/6181259263_cf913d2de3_o.jpg) (http://www.flickr.com/photos/pitdroidtech/6181259263/)
20110926-003 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/pitdroidtech/6181259263/) by max_wedge (http://www.flickr.com/people/pitdroidtech/), on Flickr

Regarding measuring the blade.

There is something that any image expert understands about digital images.  As an image becomes more pixelated, details can disappear.  They blur into the background and can not be resolved at all.  If you look at the image of the blades, it's impossible to see where it ends.  Indeed at 91 metres total height, the blade should extend 26 metres down towards the ground, leaving only 39 metres between the tip of the blade and the ground. That's over a third of the length of the tower. Yet in the image it seems to be more like only a 1/4 of the visible tower length and that's only to the tree tops, not to the base.  So we can't really rely on any measurement of the blade.

Another factor about the blade is that it's impossible to tell if the lower pointing blade is perfectly vertical.  If it's not then without knowing it's angle from the perpendicular we can't use it to gauge the visible length of the tower.

I looked for possible yardsticks; there are none.  The only other yard sticks are an indeterminate distance infront or behind the tower.

We could possible use a segment of the CN Tower, measuring it's length from a plan of the tower, and then work out using the degree to which something reduces in apparent size by distance.  We would have to factor in the camera lens and sensor size too I suspect.  We would also have to guess at the photographers distance to the CN Tower.  Any measurement we made would be no more accurate than the estimations we are already arguing about :-)

Title: Re: Photographic Evidence of Curvature Beyond the Visible Horizon
Post by: Ski on September 25, 2011, 11:27:22 AM
I assumed since you thought you could see the base of the tower that you meant this pixel.  I personally don't think it's the base of the tower.  I think the base of the tower is hidden below the horizon.
Your photo says the base of the tower is behind the trees. That the base of the tower could be hiding below a hill of earth and water is patently impossible from the photos you posted of the area.

Quote
So even if the white van is only 2.5m high, that's a total of 4m to the base of the tower from the shoreline.
Which means, even accepting your proposition, it could not be above the horizon. Yet here it is. Either behind the trees as you initially said, or below the trees as I suspect -- either is impossible, which you realize and now begin to change the arbitrary position to satisfy alleged rotundity.


Regarding the view of the barge.  I've used two standards to gauge a rough estimation of the height of the deck (see the cut and pasted sections on the image below).  Twice the height of a man is a fair estimation.  That's about 3.5m, two men of 5.7 feet in height. [/quote]
A man sitting on the stern of a boat is not representative of 5.7 feet in height.



Regarding measuring the blade.

Quote
Another factor about the blade is that it's impossible to tell if the lower pointing blade is perfectly vertical.  If it's not then without knowing it's angle from the perpendicular we can't use it to gauge the visible length of the tower.
The uppermost blades are both nearly aligned with eachother. It stands to reason that the lower blade is nearly vertical. The fact is that you know the comparative numbers shows the base to be behind the trees, just as you posited on your picture -- perfectly impossible for a globe.


Title: Re: Photographic Evidence of Curvature Beyond the Visible Horizon
Post by: momentia on September 25, 2011, 11:31:33 AM
I found this photo, the turbine is actually quite high above the water.
Look at the car on the road next to the turbine base (it is down and to the left).
(http://architecture.mit.edu/class/nature/student_projects/2007/cherryj/urban-nature/img/toronto1.jpg)

definitely more than 4 meters above the water.
Title: Re: Photographic Evidence of Curvature Beyond the Visible Horizon
Post by: pitdroidtech on September 25, 2011, 05:33:26 PM
That the base of the tower could be hiding below a hill of earth and water is patently impossible from the photos you posted of the area.
Really?  Seems Momentia's recent photo supports my reading of the Streetview photos rather than yours.


Which means, even accepting your proposition, it could not be above the horizon. Yet here it is. Either behind the trees as you initially said, or below the trees as I suspect -- either is impossible, which you realize and now begin to change the arbitrary position to satisfy alleged rotundity.
I never claimed it was "behind the trees".  From the photo it's not possible to say where the base is.  This is what YOU said, and to which I was responding:
Quote
I think, in fact, that one can see the base of the WindShare tower below the trees, in addition to the jetty.
My caption on the photo about the base was referring to YOUR claim, not my own.


A man sitting on the stern of a boat is not representative of 5.7 feet in height.
Actually it is.  He's wearing a jacket, taking into account his hips (covered by the jacket) I've allowed for the height of his legs.  Infact I cut and past from the waterlevel to his head, more than enough to allow for him standing.  I also cut and paste the height of the deck to top of the porthole, also roughly a man's height.

The uppermost blades are both nearly aligned with eachother. It stands to reason that the lower blade is nearly vertical. The fact is that you know the comparative numbers shows the base to be behind the trees, just as you posited on your picture -- perfectly impossible for a globe.
By my reading, the blades aren't quite level at the top. Also, you completely (and conveniently) ignored the fact that the lower blade blurs out to nothing and it's quite impossible to tell where the tip of the blade actually lies.

regarding this:
Quote
the base to be behind the trees, just as you posited on your picture
- no I was not positing that the base was behind the trees; I was showing that the trees obscure the lower section of the tower hence making it impossible to tell if the base was there or not - the wording was reflective of YOUR hypothesis that you could see the base of the tower - something which is quite absurd when you look at the picture.

Regarding the photo generally, the only thing I am using it to prove is that the figures are sufficiently adequate to support the hypothesis that the earth is round.  It's no kind of proof, but it is certainly no proof that the earth is flat.  Given the missing 2-3 metres or so of boardwalk and roadway in the photo (judging by Momentia's post of the base of the tower), the photo is highly consistent with Round Earth predictions.


Title: Re: Photographic Evidence of Curvature Beyond the Visible Horizon
Post by: Ski on September 25, 2011, 11:56:28 PM
Quote from: momentia
I found this photo...
Thank you. I really do appreciate the efforts (of both you). I found it difficult to find a photo with a vantage point that might help us.

Really?  Seems Momentia's recent photo supports my reading of the Streetview photos rather than yours.
I disagree. Momentia's photo shows clearly that there is no berm to obstruct the view of the tower (regardless of where the base is located). The only thing that might obscure the tower is the trees. The tower is on the berm, not behind one. It does show, however, that the base is higher above the water line than the four meters either of us supposed.


Quote
I never claimed it was "behind the trees".  From the photo it's not possible to say where the base is.  This is what YOU said, and to which I was responding:
Quote
I think, in fact, that one can see the base of the WindShare tower below the trees, in addition to the jetty.
My caption on the photo about the base was referring to YOUR claim, not my own.
Yet you clearly place the base above the pixelated point I believed to be the base. "Base of tower obscured by trees"
For what it is worth, I now believe you to be correct.


A man sitting on the stern of a boat is not representative of 5.7 feet in height.
Actually it is.  He's wearing a jacket, taking into account his hips (covered by the jacket) I've allowed for the height of his legs.  Infact I cut and past from the waterlevel to his head, more than enough to allow for him standing.  I also cut and paste the height of the deck to top of the porthole, also roughly a man's height.[/quote]
Based on the photo of the kayaker, I whole-heartedly disagree. Yet, this is largely speculative -- again, we could argue forever the point, and in the end, I'm not sure how we can assert this without the help of someone who lives nearby.

Quote
The uppermost blades are both nearly aligned with eachother. It stands to reason that the lower blade is nearly vertical. The fact is that you know the comparative numbers shows the base to be behind the trees, just as you posited on your picture -- perfectly impossible for a globe.
By my reading, the blades aren't quite level at the top. Also, you completely (and conveniently) ignored the fact that the lower blade blurs out to nothing and it's quite impossible to tell where the tip of the blade actually lies.
This is why I said, "nearly aligned." They are not quite level. I looked at the blades in detail close up, and I came to the same conclusion that you did. It is impossible to tell with any certain certainty where the bottom blade ends. This is why I did not make an attempt to actually measure the tower using that scale. It would ultimately lead to an answer too specious to benefit us. I have no desire to work backwards.


Quote
Regarding the photo generally, the only thing I am using it to prove is that the figures are sufficiently adequate to support the hypothesis that the earth is round. 
I disagree strongly. I think the fact we can see below the trees at all is proof there exists no hill of water attested to be globularism. There also is a dark line above the water that at all appearances represents the jetty. I cannot reconcile this with rotundity. As to the boardwalk/roadway, were it not for the car on the road, it would not appear to us at all in that photo either, but we can agree, I think, this is because of the angle, not the rotundity of the earth.
Title: Re: Photographic Evidence of Curvature Beyond the Visible Horizon
Post by: sandokhan on September 26, 2011, 01:27:37 AM
Read and understand the theory of gravity before you argue against it.    Gravity pulls equally towards the centre of the sphere  on all points at the surface of the sphere.  Hence water is always pulled to the centre of the Earth, ie, downwards.  I can't believe I'm explaining this to you...?!?!?

You have not done your homework...there is no such thing as attractive gravity...here is the complete demonstration:

Sun and moon, comets, planets, satellites, and meteorites - all the heavenly host - air and water, mountain massifs and sea tides, each and all of them disobey the law of laws which is supposed to know no exception.

GASES

The ingredients of the air, oxygen, nitrogen, argon and other gases, though not in a compound but in a mixture, are found in equal proportions at various levels of the atmosphere despite great differences in specific weights. The explanation accepted in science is this: Swift winds keep the gases thoroughly mixed, so that except for water-vapor the composition of the atmosphere is the same throughout the troposphere to a high degree of approximation. This explanation cannot be true. If it were true, then the moment the wind subsides, the nitrogen should stream upward, and the oxygen should drop, preceded by the argon. If winds are caused by a difference in weight between warm and cold air, the difference in weight between heavy gases high in the atmosphere and light gases at the lower levels should create storms, which would subside only after they had carried each gas to its natural place in accordance with its gravity or specific weight. But nothing of the kind happens.

When some aviators expressed the belief that pockets of noxious gas are in the air, the scientists replied:

There are no pockets of noxious gas. No single gas, and no other likely mixture of gases, has, at ordinary temperatures and pressures, the same density as atmospheric air. Therefore, a pocket of foreign gas in that atmosphere would almost certainly either bob up like a balloon, or sink like a stone in water.

Why, then, do not the atmospheric gases separate and stay apart in accordance with the specific gravities?

Ozone, though heavier than oxygen, is absent in the lower layers of the atmosphere, is present in the upper layers, and is not subject to the mixing effect of the wind. The presence of ozone high in the atmosphere suggests that oxygen must be still higher: As oxygen is less dense than ozone, it will tend to rise to even greater heights. Nowhere is it asked why ozone does not descend of its own weight or at least why it is not mixed by the wind with other gases.


CLOUDS AND MIST

Water, though eight hundred times heavier than air, is held in droplets, by the millions of tons, miles above the ground. Clouds and mist are composed of droplets which defy gravitation.


And remember, the trajectories of the clouds clearly show that the Earth could not and cannot rotate around its own axis:

http://theflatearthsociety.net/talk/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=1143


BAROMETRIC PRESSURE PARADOX

The weight of the atmosphere is constantly changing as the changing barometric pressure indicates. Low pressure areas are not necessarily encircled by high pressure belts. The semidiurnal changes in barometric pressure are not explainable by the mechanistic principles of gravitation and the heat effect of solar radiation. The cause of these variations is unknown.

It has been known now for two and a half centuries, that there are more or less daily variations in the height of the barometer, culminating in two maxima and two minima during the course of 24 hours.  The same observation has been made and puzzled over at every station at which pressure records were kept and studied, but without success in finding for it the complete physical explanation. In speaking of the diurnal and semidiurnal variations of the barometer, Lord Rayleigh says: The relative magnitude of the latter [semidiurnal variations], as observed at most parts of the earth's surface, is still a mystery, all the attempted explanations being illusory.

One maximum is at 10 a.m., the other at 10 p.m.; the two minima are at 4 a.m. and 4 p.m. The heating effect of the sun can explain neither the time when the maxima appear nor the time of the minima of these semidiurnal variations. If the pressure becomes lower without the air becoming lighter through a lateral expansion due to heat, this must mean that the same mass of air gravitates with changing force at different hours.

The lowest pressure is near the equator, in the belt of the doldrums. Yet the troposphere is highest at the equator, being on the average about 18 km. high there; it is lower in the moderate latitudes, and only 6 km. high above the ground at the poles.


Here are many more examples, pitroidtech:

http://theflatearthsociety.net/talk/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=1183&start=15#p35541
http://theflatearthsociety.net/talk/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=1183&start=15#p35542

It is very obvious you have no idea what is going on, the fact that the gravity is not attractive...



That's right, it could not be seen.  Only on 12 days out of every 30 years could it be seen.  This has been explained by unusual air inversion events which lead to a large degree of refraction.  If it was actually possible to see that far in normal conditions, then every single day it would be visible.

Again, you have no idea as to what is going on...you CANNOT use either terrestrial refraction or optical reflection to explain the fact that a 40 meter building can be seen all the way from 128 km distance; no formula of terrestrial refraction can do that for you, and the best known optical reflection phenomenon is the Ice Blink, diffuse and unclear lights from the ice in very special conditions.

Please read again:

'As twilight deepened, there were more and more lights.'

Bringing out a pair of binoculars, Kanis said he was able to make out the shape of some buildings.

'With the binoculars we could make out three different communities,' Kanis said.

According to one Coast Guard crewman, it is possible to see city lights across the lake at very specific times.

Currently a Coast Guard crewman stationed in Holland, Todd Reed has worked on the east side of Lake Michigan for 30 years and said he's been able to see lights across the lake at least a dozen times.

THE CURVATURE FOR 128 KM IS 321 METERS.

THE HOUSE OF THOSE RESIDENTS IS LOCATED RIGHT NEXT TO THE LAKE, BUT LET US INVESTIGATE VARIOUS ALTITUDES, FOR THE SAKE OF DISCUSSION.

h = 3 meters BD = 1163 METERS

h = 5 meters BD = 1129 METERS

h = 10 meters BD = 1068 METERS

h = 20 meters BD = 984 METERS

h = 50 meters BD = 827.6 METERS

h = 100 meters BD = 667.6 METERS

The highest building in Milwaukee has a height of 183 meters, the difference from h = 5 meters in altitude being 946 meters, and those residents saw the buildings from THREE DIFFERENT COMMUNITIES, two of which have buildings whose heights measure way under 183 meters.

Therefore, the only way those buildings could be seen, given the 128 km distance, would be if the surface of Lake Michigan is completely flat (you can also use the above formula on atmospheric refraction to see how impossible it is to see shapes of buildings over a 128 km distance).

THE TALLEST BUILDING IN RACINE IS THE COUNTY COURTHOUSE, 40 METERS; IT WOULD BE ABSOLUTELY IMPOSSIBLE TO SEE THIS COURTHOUSE FROM 128 KM DISTANCE, FROM HOLLAND.


To argue about refraction given the 1000 meter visual obstacle means very clearly you do not understand the issues involved here. I already posted an online refraction formula, you will never see anything even with a 400 meter visual obstacle in front of you, not to mention 1000 meters.

The facts are very clear: the surface of Lake Michigan is completely flat, that is the ONLY WAY to see the buildings from Milwaukee and Racine from a distance of 128 km.


AETHER VIBRATIONS

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1231580#msg1231580

The Airy experiment of 1871, clearly proving the existence of aether, it is very important to read these facts.


The science of aether vibrations is called CYMATICS.

Here is a short introduction, the lines of force that become visible, being activated by either sound (as in the following videos, or by applying electrical tension, as in the Biefeld-Brown effect):






The lines of force that appear, as the frequency is increased, are a manifestation of the aether.

http://www.world-mysteries.com/sci_cymatics.htm

(http://www.world-mysteries.com/sci_cymsand1.gif)
(http://www.world-mysteries.com/cym_fig2.gif)


The most formidable work on Aether Vibrations:

http://www.soulsofdistortion.nl/SODA_chapter6.html


Therefore, the glow of the trajectory of the ball lightning, and the glow after the explosion is an activation of the aether...


But, since the RE dismisses the aether theory out of hand, we find ourselves in the morning of June 30, 1908, with the sun having just risen above Siberia. On the other side of the globe, it is nightfall. We are told that the light of the Sun cannot be seen on the other side of a globe, because of curvature.


The glow of the trajectory was seen from 0:00 to 0:15 in London; and the intensity of that radiation was much less than that of the explosion itself. It could not have been seen even at some 600 km distance, due to the curvature.


If the skies were aglow for days afterwards, how could it be the flash of the explosion? 

The glow is a manifestation, as I have demonstrated above, of the aether...if you dismiss the aether theory, you must explain how the initial glow, and the flash itself were seen from 600, 1000 and 7000 km distances.

The glow was carried through the atmosphere due to refraction by ice crystals.  The glow from volcanoes, forest fires and many other phenomenon are known to be seen from great distances.  Have you never seen a glow of a light from around the corner? The point is that the event itself, was not visible.  Only the after effects of the event, that spread through the atmosphere, were visible.

Are we here at a high-school bull session, where the most inept explanations are offerred to try to get your way out of this situation?

DO YOU UNDERSTAND THE FACTS AND ISSUES INVOLVED HERE? Please read the trajectory of the clouds thread again; the atmosphere cannot rotate with the earth, and in fact does not rotate. Do you want me to bring here the entire file, so that you can understand the problems with a rotating earth?

THE FLASH WAS SEEN INSTANTANEOUSLY FROM LONDON, IRKUTSK, AND LAKE BAIKAL. Please give up the bullshit with the ice crystals...

Also the glow of the trajectory itself was seen all the way from London...no way you could see that from a distance of 7000 km, with a visual obstacle of 7463 km to deal with...to dream about ice crystals is more than ludicrous...the visual obstacle for Lake Baikal, over that 600 km distance, is some 21,5 km; for Irkutsk is 67,5 km, over a 1000 km distance...to talk about ice crystals, with an explosion at some 7 km in the atmosphere on one side of the globe, and a very clear view of both the glow of the initial trajectory/flash of the explosion from the other side of the globe, means that you have no explanation for the facts involved here.


The fact that the glow of the trajectory itself and the flash of the explosion were seen from London, destroys immediately any round/spherical earth hypotheses.

It is the most extraordinary and perfect proof that the Earth is indeed flat.

The visual obstacle over a distance of 7000 km, from London to river Tunguska is 7463 km.

No flash, no glow could have been seen on a round earth; if the light from the Sun could not reach London, at that point in time, at 7:20 am in Siberia, due to curvature, HOW could an explosion which did take place at some 7 km in altitude, be seen from London? The visual limit on a round earth is some 400 km; beyond that NOTHING COULD BE SEEN.





Title: Re: Photographic Evidence of Curvature Beyond the Visible Horizon
Post by: sandokhan on September 26, 2011, 01:54:31 AM
Why should I reword anything.  My math does not produce a 59 metre curvature for this scenario.   Show where my attempts are lousy.  If you don't, I have no reason to think you understand anything I'm trying to tell you.  the fact is that round earth theory does not predict any significant obstacle in this case.  And the fact that there isn't makes this photograph completely in support of RET.

Here are the original posts in question:

If this is from the same altitude as the last Grimsby photo, then my last assessment still holds.  The city is sitting on top of the curvature, instead of behind it.

From 170 metres your horizon is 46.6 km away, and toronto is - what do you know only 2 km further.  So again, a photo where toronto is sitting on top of your "obstacle" 


Let us take a distance of 110 km. Then the city would sit on top of a curvature of some 237 meters.

From Toronto to Grimsby we have a distance of 53 km, + 2 km to reach those 240 meters.

Over that distance, we have a curvature of 59 meters.

and the entire visible area of lake ontario is your ascending slope.  your descending slope will always be hidden by the ascending slope, so there's no real reason to expect to see it.

Your argument is more than lousy...that is why I gave you a chance to reword your message.

The entire visible area of lake Ontario is not your ascending slope; we are not taking here a distance of 110 km...we have a distance of 55 km.

The ascending/rising slope occurs to the midpoint of the distance, there we have a maximum curvature of 59 meters, and then we have a descending slope all the way to Toronto.

Now you understand?


In these photographs there is a completely flat surface of the water; no ascending slope, no midpoint curvature (that is, the wall of water measuring some 59 meters in height), and no descending slope:

(http://farm1.static.flickr.com/117/312939439_ef682e2d8a_o.jpg)

There is nothing else to discuss or to argue about...no ascending slope, no curvature whatsoever, just a perfectly flat surface of the lake for you to see.

(http://farm1.static.flickr.com/29/53037827_fdb83b96bd_b.jpg)

Again, no ascending slope, no midpoint curvature...


4 metres in the first photo is only 2 pixels.

The problem is not the pixels, but the fact that there is no ascending slope, and no visual obstacle of some 6 meters (curvature of 4 meters).

(http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2012/1571369829_dada8e886e_b.jpg)

There is absolutely no curvature from Port Credit to Toronto.



Here's where your lack of understanding of this stuff shows: "no midpoint visual obstacle."  You're assuming that some visual obstacle has to exist for there to be curvature.  But the visual obstacle doesn't have to be midpoint, and sometimes it's directly underneath what we're looking at, as is the case with the Grimsby shot of toronto, with toronto sitting on the "obstacle" instead of behind it.

and the place where the shore/horizon cuts through the ships indicates that the photo was not taken on the beach,  although without knowing how tall those ships are we have no way of knowing how high we are.  We can guess no less than 10 metres, but we could be anywhere as high as 30m


Again, lousy arguments, which do show, just as in the case of lake Ontario, that you do not understand the issues involved.

Let us then ascend to an altitude of 30 meters.

(http://img685.imageshack.us/img685/6801/doverbest.jpg)

On a spherical earth we should see: an ascending slope, a midpoint curvature of some 22,4 meters, AND A VISUAL OBSTACLE OF 16,5 METERS.

That ship is not part of either an ascending, or a descending slope; and we have a full view of the White Cliffs of Dover, the entire 90-100 meter portion...

Please understand: NO ASCENDING SLOPE TO THAT SHIP, NO MIDPOINT CURVATURE OF 22,6 METERS (UNMISTAKAABLE FROM 30 METERS ON A ROUND EARTH), NO DESCENDING SLOPE, NO 16,5 METER VISUAL OBSTACLE.

The surface of the English Channel is completely flat from one side to the other, over a distance of 34 km.



Why was this only observed around Europe? If the Earth was flat, shouldn't there be reports of this event coming in from thousands of kilometers away in all directions?

Actually I did come across some reports from ships which were sailing in the Indian Ocean, that the explosion was seen from that location; I tried to find out what happened in China, Japan, Korea, but the language barrier prohibits any further research.

The fact that both the glow and the flash of the explosion were seen from a distance of 7000 km, from London, should be more than sufficient for you to understand that the Earth is actually flat, please see my previous message also...
Title: Re: Photographic Evidence of Curvature Beyond the Visible Horizon
Post by: pitdroidtech on September 26, 2011, 06:38:15 AM
Levee, your theories and ideas are not proven by any means; the world's weather scientists are virtually unanimous in their understanding of refraction and it's abilities to distribute light great distances in unique circumstances (such as the Tungaska explosion  and the the Lake Ontario incident), you alone stand in defiance of their knowledge and expertise.  Congratulations.

But please don't come here and accuse us of bullshitting and ignoring evidence; it is you who ignore the evidence in preference for your own unique view of science.  That is your right, but please don't be so arrogant as to assume you are somehow the only gifted individual capable of understanding, and that the rest of us RE'ers are misguided fools.  The bottomline is that it comes down to difference of opinion, and your posturing as some kind of self appointed expert in the various sciences of the world does not become you.

Regarding your submissions, I say again, the view of Lake Ontario was a unique circumstance.  If it was due to the flatness of earth (and not atmospheric and weather conditions) then you would be able to see it just about every day.  You haven't answered this.  You cherry pick the points you respond to, the sure sign of someone not at all sure of their facts and with no real case to argue.

You have not answered my graph showing why we can't see curvature; tell me this, why should I be able to see 60m high curvature over 57km?  All of  these points can be easily demonstrated with geometry, but you in your wisdom, call our arguments lousy and tell us we don't understand, instead of debating the issue on it's merits. 

You argue that the clouds can't possibly adhere to the Coriolis affect, yet massively expensive supercomputers model weather very well based on the phenomena.  Features of hurricanes would be unexplained without it.

This is supposed to be a place of science and reason - please do us all a favour and restrict your posts to reasoned argument and refrain from the name calling you are resorting to.  If you can resist the urge to make inferences that us RE'ers are stupid and lacking in comprehension, then I might be interested in discussion your submission in detail. 

However, that said, this thread is for photographic evidence, and I consider you wildly off topic when you talk about weather, tunguska, and eye witness accounts of people viewing lights and buildings over lake Ontario.  If you wish to discuss these things start your own thread and link to it.
Title: Re: Photographic Evidence of Curvature Beyond the Visible Horizon
Post by: pitdroidtech on September 26, 2011, 06:48:22 AM
Quote from: momentia
I found this photo...
Thank you. I really do appreciate the efforts (of both you). I found it difficult to find a photo with a vantage point that might help us.
You sir are a gentleman, and I mean that with no sarcasm intended. :-)
Based on the photo of the kayaker, I whole-heartedly disagree. Yet, this is largely speculative -- again, we could argue forever the point, and in the end, I'm not sure how we can assert this without the help of someone who lives nearby.
This is why I said, "nearly aligned." They are not quite level. I looked at the blades in detail close up, and I came to the same conclusion that you did. It is impossible to tell with any certain certainty where the bottom blade ends. This is why I did not make an attempt to actually measure the tower using that scale. It would ultimately lead to an answer too specious to benefit us. I have no desire to work backwards.
I agree.

Quote
Regarding the photo generally, the only thing I am using it to prove is that the figures are sufficiently adequate to support the hypothesis that the earth is round. 
I disagree strongly. I think the fact we can see below the trees at all is proof there exists no hill of water attested to be globularism. There also is a dark line above the water that at all appearances represents the jetty. I cannot reconcile this with rotundity. As to the boardwalk/roadway, were it not for the car on the road, it would not appear to us at all in that photo either, but we can agree, I think, this is because of the angle, not the rotundity of the earth.

The white speck could be anything. Literally anything.  It could be a gull much closer to the barge than the Toronto shoreline.  As you said, the base of the tower could be more than even more than 4m from sealevel, which allows even more latitude on the RE side of the argument with respect to the position of the photographer and their height relative to the barge.  I can see no black line, if you would be so kind as to point out what you are referring to I will give you my own assessment of what it means.

Regarding the line I drew on the photograph, it was not intended to point to the base of the tower.  Regardless of how you interpreted my intent, that does not make it true.  My intent was to draw attention to the general position of trees themselves, not the tower.   You can read the tag thus; "I note your statement that the base of the tower can be seen, but look, there are a bunch of tress obscuring the tower, and even if the base were behind the trees, you would not be able to tell from this photo"

I think this all supports my intent with this thread which is to collect repeated, fully detailed data with which to make qualified comparisons and arguments.

I will eventually get back to that purpose, but I see this thread as ongoing and don't feel any need to rush forward - I am after quality of data that will build to quantity,  not quantity rushed out that is useless as a basis of study.

Many thanks for continuing to participate, to both RE'ers and FE'ers contributing usefully to this thread.
Title: Re: Photographic Evidence of Curvature Beyond the Visible Horizon
Post by: Ski on September 26, 2011, 02:56:12 PM
The white speck could be anything. Literally anything.  It could be a gull much closer to the barge than the Toronto shoreline.
I agree. The presence of the other mysterious "white spot" suggests another source may be possible. It may be a vehicle on the road, for example. Or a bird as you suggest.

Yet, it is certainly not possible for the base to be below the horizon in this photo.


Quote
I can see no black line, if you would be so kind as to point out what you are referring to I will give you my own assessment of what it means.
I will dig this up later.
Title: Re: Photographic Evidence of Curvature Beyond the Visible Horizon
Post by: sandokhan on September 27, 2011, 01:33:03 AM
Levee, your theories and ideas are not proven by any means; the world's weather scientists are virtually unanimous in their understanding of refraction and it's abilities to distribute light great distances in unique circumstances (such as the Tungaska explosion  and the the Lake Ontario incident), you alone stand in defiance of their knowledge and expertise.  Congratulations.

As I said, those scientists have formulas at their disposal to work with; no refraction formula will help you with a 1000 meter visual obstacle. From Holland to Milwaukee and Racine we have a distance of 128 km, with a curvature of 321 meters. The actual visual obstacle is around 1000 meters. I also posted here an online terrestrial refraction formula (one of the most complicated, it takes everything into account), you can use it any way you want, you will NEVER see the County Courthouse of Racine from 128 km distance.

The tallest building in Milwaukee is 183 meters high, the tallest building in Racine is 40 meters high.

Please use any refraction formula you can think of; even if we would ascend to, say, 200 meters, no refraction formula will work miracles for you.

If you will come to your senses, you will see that I am right.


Refraction cannot help you in the case of the explosion of Tunguska, in 1908. No refraction formula can explain the fact that an explosion which did take place at some 7 km in altitude, was seen from Irkutsk, with a 67,5 km visual obstacle. Please understand these numbers: 67,5 km.

Between London and Tunguska there are 7000 km, the visual obstacle measures 7463 meters.

The only way the explosion could have been seen from London (actually, even the initial trajectory of the ball lightning was also observed, from 0:00 to 0:15) is if the earth has a flat surface.

In the case of a round earth, nothing could have been seen beyond a range of some 400 km; the numbers are pretty clear. If you want to dream about refraction, and ice crystals, go ahead...


Let us go to Spain, right on the beach.

(http://farm1.static.flickr.com/55/130948289_44854d63fa_b.jpg)

And a video from exactly the same spot...

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-811260411880444286&q=barbarians+terry+jones&total=22&start=10&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=1#

Between 38:28 - 38:35, we can see clearly ABSOLUTELY NO CURVATURE ALL THE WAY TO MOROCCO...the surface of the strait is completely flat...


There is no curvature between Spain and Morocco, over the strait of Gibraltar...


Title: Re: Photographic Evidence of Curvature Beyond the Visible Horizon
Post by: pitdroidtech on September 27, 2011, 05:37:07 AM
As I said, those scientists have formulas at their disposal to work with; no refraction formula will help you with a 1000 meter visual obstacle. From Holland to Milwaukee and Racine we have a distance of 128 km, with a curvature of 321 meters. The actual visual obstacle is around 1000 meters. I also posted here an online terrestrial refraction formula (one of the most complicated, it takes everything into account), you can use it any way you want, you will NEVER see the County Courthouse of Racine from 128 km distance.

The tallest building in Milwaukee is 183 meters high, the tallest building in Racine is 40 meters high.

Please use any refraction formula you can think of; even if we would ascend to, say, 200 meters, no refraction formula will work miracles for you.

If you will come to your senses, you will see that I am right.
Not so.  In the right circumstances refraction can continue to refract light indefinitely, parallel to the earth's surface.  If the earth were flat, the refraction would eventually cause the light to be pushed to the ground, but on a curved surface, the refraction continues to refract the light parallel to the earth's surface and for great distances.

You still haven't answered me; why can't the lights be seen every night, and only for 12 nights out of 30 years?  Reason, because the unique circumstances that allow such extreme refraction only occur very occasionally.

BTW, this quote explains perfectly the scientific accepted formula for the refraction affect caused by temperature inversion:
Quote
If the vertical temperature gradient is +12.9°C per 100 meters (reminder: Positive sign means temperature gets hotter as one goes higher), then horizontal light rays will just follow the curvature of the Earth, and the horizon will appear flat. If the gradient is less the rays are not bent enough and get lost in space. That is the normal situation of a spherical, convex horizon. But if the gradient gets larger, say +18°C per 100 meters, an observer would see the horizon as concave, the right and left ends turned upwards as if one were standing at the bottom of a saucer

In the right conditions, light rays keep being refracted back towards the surface as they reach the higher warmer air, thus maintaining a path parallel to the surface.


Refraction cannot help you in the case of the explosion of Tunguska, in 1908. No refraction formula can explain the fact that an explosion which did take place at some 7 km in altitude, was seen from Irkutsk, with a 67,5 km visual obstacle. Please understand these numbers: 67,5 km.

Between London and Tunguska there are 7000 km, the visual obstacle measures 7463 meters.

The only way the explosion could have been seen from London (actually, even the initial trajectory of the ball lightning was also observed, from 0:00 to 0:15) is if the earth has a flat surface.

In the case of a round earth, nothing could have been seen beyond a range of some 400 km; the numbers are pretty clear. If you want to dream about refraction, and ice crystals, go ahead...
It's not my dream, it's a known phenomena.  Ice crystal formation and subsequent refraction over large distances has been observed by the space shuttle entering the atmosphere.  The same explanation can be applied, and is applied to the tunguska explosion, by hundreds of scientists with many years of education and research experience.  Why should I believe you over them? I don't know anything about you.  What's your qualification that allows you to cast aspersions on the worlds scientists so casually?
Title: Re: Photographic Evidence of Curvature Beyond the Visible Horizon
Post by: NTheGreat on September 27, 2011, 06:06:05 AM
The only way the explosion could have been seen from London (actually, even the initial trajectory of the ball lightning was also observed, from 0:00 to 0:15) is if the earth has a flat surface.

Who said an explosion was seen in London? You seem to be making stuff up. As far as I can see, all that was seen in Europe was a long lasting glow. Not an explosion.

Quote
Let us go to Spain, right on the beach.

...

And a video from exactly the same spot...

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-811260411880444286&q=barbarians+terry+jones&total=22&start=10&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=1#

Between 38:28 - 38:35, we can see clearly ABSOLUTELY NO CURVATURE ALL THE WAY TO MOROCCO...the surface of the strait is completely flat...


There is no curvature between Spain and Morocco, over the strait of Gibraltar...

Title: Re: Photographic Evidence of Curvature Beyond the Visible Horizon
Post by: sandokhan on September 28, 2011, 01:37:36 AM
Not so.  In the right circumstances refraction can continue to refract light indefinitely, parallel to the earth's surface.  If the earth were flat, the refraction would eventually cause the light to be pushed to the ground, but on a curved surface, the refraction continues to refract the light parallel to the earth's surface and for great distances.

Please research the subject before making such statements here...the known formulas for atmospheric/astronomic refraction cannot work miracles for you...it would require a continuous layer of clouds, which is not the case anyway...given the visual obstacle of 7463 km, your explanations are very desperate to say the least...use any formula you can find...you will never obtain more than say, some 100 km (at best) for continuous atmospheric refraction...

Ice crystals cannot explain the fact that the explosion from Tunguska was seen from Irkutsk and London; even to suggest such ridiculous explanations means that you do not understand the facts involved here...

If the light from the Sun could not reach London, at that point in time, at 7:20 am in Siberia, due to curvature, HOW could an explosion which did take place at some 7 km in altitude, be seen from London? The visual limit on a round earth is some 400 km; beyond that NOTHING COULD BE SEEN.



As I said, it does not matter HOW many times the lights from Racine were seen from Holland...even ONCE, it means the end of the round earth theory...no formula can explain the lights from Racine, given the almost 1000 meter visual obstacle...again, use the known formulas, and you will see that I am right...


“TO THE EDITOR OF THE TIMES.”
“Sir,--I should be interested in hearing whether others of your readers observed the strange light in the sky which was seen here last night by my sister and myself. I do not know when it first appeared; we saw it between 12 o’clock (midnight) and 12:15 a.m. It was in the northeast and of a bright flame-colour like the light of sunrise or sunset. The sky, for some distance above the light, which appeared to be on the horizon, was blue as in the daytime, with bands of light cloud of a pinkish colour floating across it at intervals. Only the brightest stars could be seen in any part of the sky, though it was an almost cloudless night. It was possible to read large print indoors, and the hands of the clock in my room were quite distinct. An hour later, at about 1:30 a.m., the room was quite light, as if it had been day; the light in the sky was then more dispersed and was a fainter yellow. The whole effect was that of a night in Norway at about this time of year. I am in the habit of watching the sky, and have noticed the amount of light indoors at different hours of the night several times in the last fortnight. I have never at any time seen anything the least like this in England, and it would be interesting if any one would explain the cause of so unusual a sight.
Yours faithfully,
Katharine Stephen.
Godmanchester, Huntingdon, July 1.”

The facts are clear: even the trajectory itself was seen, before the explosion.

It was possible to read large print indoors, and the hands of the clock in my room were quite distinct. An hour later, at about 1:30 a.m., the room was quite light, as if it had been day; the light in the sky was then more dispersed and was a fainter yellow.

This happened after 0:20 am; an hour later the glow began to disperse...these were the reports all over Europe, a brightness of great intensity, followed by dispersion some hours later...no ice crystals will explain the fact that an explosion which took place at some 7 km in altitude, was seen from the other side of the globe with a 7463 km visual obstacle.


And pitroid tech, the water cannot stay curved because gravity is not a pull or attractive...please read again:

Sun and moon, comets, planets, satellites, and meteorites - all the heavenly host - air and water, mountain massifs and sea tides, each and all of them disobey the law of laws which is supposed to know no exception.

GASES

The ingredients of the air, oxygen, nitrogen, argon and other gases, though not in a compound but in a mixture, are found in equal proportions at various levels of the atmosphere despite great differences in specific weights. The explanation accepted in science is this: Swift winds keep the gases thoroughly mixed, so that except for water-vapor the composition of the atmosphere is the same throughout the troposphere to a high degree of approximation. This explanation cannot be true. If it were true, then the moment the wind subsides, the nitrogen should stream upward, and the oxygen should drop, preceded by the argon. If winds are caused by a difference in weight between warm and cold air, the difference in weight between heavy gases high in the atmosphere and light gases at the lower levels should create storms, which would subside only after they had carried each gas to its natural place in accordance with its gravity or specific weight. But nothing of the kind happens.

When some aviators expressed the belief that pockets of noxious gas are in the air, the scientists replied:

There are no pockets of noxious gas. No single gas, and no other likely mixture of gases, has, at ordinary temperatures and pressures, the same density as atmospheric air. Therefore, a pocket of foreign gas in that atmosphere would almost certainly either bob up like a balloon, or sink like a stone in water.

Why, then, do not the atmospheric gases separate and stay apart in accordance with the specific gravities?

Ozone, though heavier than oxygen, is absent in the lower layers of the atmosphere, is present in the upper layers, and is not subject to the mixing effect of the wind. The presence of ozone high in the atmosphere suggests that oxygen must be still higher: As oxygen is less dense than ozone, it will tend to rise to even greater heights. Nowhere is it asked why ozone does not descend of its own weight or at least why it is not mixed by the wind with other gases.


CLOUDS AND MIST

Water, though eight hundred times heavier than air, is held in droplets, by the millions of tons, miles above the ground. Clouds and mist are composed of droplets which defy gravitation.


And remember, the trajectories of the clouds clearly show that the Earth could not and cannot rotate around its own axis:

http://theflatearthsociety.net/talk/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=1143


BAROMETRIC PRESSURE PARADOX

The weight of the atmosphere is constantly changing as the changing barometric pressure indicates. Low pressure areas are not necessarily encircled by high pressure belts. The semidiurnal changes in barometric pressure are not explainable by the mechanistic principles of gravitation and the heat effect of solar radiation. The cause of these variations is unknown.

It has been known now for two and a half centuries, that there are more or less daily variations in the height of the barometer, culminating in two maxima and two minima during the course of 24 hours.  The same observation has been made and puzzled over at every station at which pressure records were kept and studied, but without success in finding for it the complete physical explanation. In speaking of the diurnal and semidiurnal variations of the barometer, Lord Rayleigh says: The relative magnitude of the latter [semidiurnal variations], as observed at most parts of the earth's surface, is still a mystery, all the attempted explanations being illusory.

One maximum is at 10 a.m., the other at 10 p.m.; the two minima are at 4 a.m. and 4 p.m. The heating effect of the sun can explain neither the time when the maxima appear nor the time of the minima of these semidiurnal variations. If the pressure becomes lower without the air becoming lighter through a lateral expansion due to heat, this must mean that the same mass of air gravitates with changing force at different hours.

The lowest pressure is near the equator, in the belt of the doldrums. Yet the troposphere is highest at the equator, being on the average about 18 km. high there; it is lower in the moderate latitudes, and only 6 km. high above the ground at the poles.


Here are many more examples, pitroidtech:

http://theflatearthsociety.net/talk/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=1183&start=15#p35541
http://theflatearthsociety.net/talk/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=1183&start=15#p35542


You had no idea about the Barometric Pressure Paradox, or about the fact that gases in the atmosphere DO NOT obey an attractive gravity law...please explain to us here how the surface of the water would stay curved without attractive gravity...your enthusiasm runs way ahead of your knowledge of real science...please do your homework on refraction and ice crystals...
Title: Re: Photographic Evidence of Curvature Beyond the Visible Horizon
Post by: pitdroidtech on September 28, 2011, 04:25:52 AM
Not so.  In the right circumstances refraction can continue to refract light indefinitely, parallel to the earth's surface.  If the earth were flat, the refraction would eventually cause the light to be pushed to the ground, but on a curved surface, the refraction continues to refract the light parallel to the earth's surface and for great distances.

Please research the subject before making such statements here...the known formulas for atmospheric/astronomic refraction cannot work miracles for you...it would require a continuous layer of clouds, which is not the case anyway...given the visual obstacle of 7463 km, your explanations are very desperate to say the least...use any formula you can find...you will never obtain more than say, some 100 km (at best) for continuous atmospheric refraction...
You just proved how little you understand about refraction.  Refraction is not caused by light reflecting off clouds!!   It's caused by light passing through different temperature layers.  Air settles into layers of different temperatures depending on conditions.  An inversion is a condition where a layer of warm air sits above a layer of cold air.  Because warm air is less dense than cold air, as light rises into the warm air it is refracted back down to the colder air.  This process can continue for as long as the temperature inversion exists and as long as it is at the sweet spot of about 13 degrees per 100m.

(http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6178/6191368537_2aaab58b5b_o.jpg) (http://www.flickr.com/photos/pitdroidtech/6191368537/)
Refraction by inversion layer (http://www.flickr.com/photos/pitdroidtech/6191368537/) by max_wedge (http://www.flickr.com/people/pitdroidtech/), on Flickr

You need to read about the differences between refraction and reflection, and you need to research the causes and consequences of temperature inversions.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Refraction
An example of refraction:
(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-cqca1e471vg/TdnetQW6-JI/AAAAAAAAACk/f6AgGYSFsbA/s1600/220px-Fnytrs.jpg)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inversion_%28meteorology%29
Title: Re: Photographic Evidence of Curvature Beyond the Visible Horizon
Post by: sandokhan on September 28, 2011, 06:48:40 AM
I am talking about optical refraction/reflection...terrestrial refraction won't help you, as I have explained already.

From the very start, I posted here the best terrestrial/atmospheric formula available, it takes everything into account: refraction constant, temperature, altitude, distance, air pressure.

http://ireland.iol.ie/~geniet/eng/refract.htm#Terrestrial


Let us go back to the data from lake Michigan:

'As twilight deepened, there were more and more lights.'

Bringing out a pair of binoculars, Kanis said he was able to make out the shape of some buildings.

'With the binoculars we could make out three different communities,' Kanis said.

According to one Coast Guard crewman, it is possible to see city lights across the lake at very specific times.

Currently a Coast Guard crewman stationed in Holland, Todd Reed has worked on the east side of Lake Michigan for 30 years and said he's been able to see lights across the lake at least a dozen times.

THE CURVATURE FOR 128 KM IS 321 METERS.

THE HOUSE OF THOSE RESIDENTS IS LOCATED RIGHT NEXT TO THE LAKE, BUT LET US INVESTIGATE VARIOUS ALTITUDES, FOR THE SAKE OF DISCUSSION.

h = 3 meters BD = 1163 METERS

h = 5 meters BD = 1129 METERS

h = 10 meters BD = 1068 METERS

h = 20 meters BD = 984 METERS


You can use the online formula anyway you want...I have just proved scientifically to you that you cannot see the lights of a building of some 40 meters in height from a distance of 128 km.

The visual obstacle is over 950 meters, as you can see.

Even if we ascend to some 500 meters, it is useless.

Using the most sophisticated formula for terrestrial refraction, the game is over for the round earth theory, no way those details could be seen, that is why I invited you to come to your senses.

OPTICAL REFLECTION/REFRACTION also cannot be used, as the best known phenomenon is called the Ice Blink, very diffuse, unclear reflections of the ice, under very special conditions...please read the data again, three communities could be seen at once.


Now, on that site we also have an atmospheric refraction formula...no use for 1000 km distances.

Let us read again.

The first report of the explosion was in the Irkutsk paper dated July 2, 1908, published two days after the explosion:

...the peasants saw a body shining very brightly (too bright for the naked eye) with a bluish-white light.... The body was in the form of 'a pipe', i.e. cylindrical. The sky was cloudless, except that low down on the horizon, in the direction in which this glowing body was observed, a small dark cloud was noticed. It was hot and dry and when the shining body approached the ground (which was covered with forest at this point) it seemed to be pulverized, and in its place a loud crash, not like thunder, but as if from the fall of large stones or from gunfire was heard. All the buildings shook and at the same time a forked tongue of flames broke through the cloud.


No optical reflection/refraction formula can explain this fact: an explosion which did take place at some 7 km in altitude, was seen from 1000 km distance, DESPITE a 67.5 km visual obstacle.

Please back up your fantasies about ice crystals and the like with a formula, but it is useless.

READ AGAIN:

...the peasants saw a body shining very brightly (too bright for the naked eye) with a bluish-white light.... The body was in the form of 'a pipe', i.e. cylindrical. The sky was cloudless, except that low down on the horizon, in the direction in which this glowing body was observed, a small dark cloud was noticed. It was hot and dry and when the shining body approached the ground (which was covered with forest at this point) it seemed to be pulverized, and in its place a loud crash...

THE EXPLOSION ITSELF WAS SEEN, AND THE INITIAL TRAJECTORY, without any refraction/reflection, everything was clearly seen, and the sky was cloudless. No refraction whatsoever, a very clear view of every detail, from 1000 km distance. With a visual obstacle of 67.5 km, this would have been utterly impossible on a round earth.


If we increase the distance to some 7000 km, it becomes hopeless for the flat earth theory.

It was possible to read large print indoors, and the hands of the clock in my room were quite distinct. An hour later, at about 1:30 a.m., the room was quite light, as if it had been day; the light in the sky was then more dispersed and was a fainter yellow.

This happened after 0:20 am; an hour later the glow began to disperse...these were the reports all over Europe, a brightness of great intensity, followed by dispersion some hours later...no ice crystals will explain the fact that an explosion which took place at some 7 km in altitude, was seen from the other side of the globe with a 7463 km visual obstacle.

To talk about ice crystals, with an explosion at some 7 km in the atmosphere on one side of the globe, and a very clear view of both the glow of the initial trajectory/flash of the explosion from the other side of the globe, means that you have no explanation for the facts involved here.

According to your explanation, we should have a 24 hour a day constant sunlight...this is what you wrote:

In the right circumstances refraction can continue to refract light indefinitely, parallel to the earth's surface.

Certainly the sun's rays of light (official theory) will be parallel to some portion of the surface at some time in the earth's rotation...that is why I invited you to think.



And now even more proofs about the Tunguska explosion.
http://www.halexandria.org/dward232.htm

Herdsman in the Gobi desert to the south described a fireball streaking across the sky along a flight path (based on a later reconstruction) at about 10o, just slightly east of true north.  Along this direction, the object approached Keshma from the south.  Then the object was observed by others moving very nearly due east toward Preobrazhenka.  This was followed by the object moving slightly north of due west toward Vanavara.  The explosion itself was oval shaped, suggesting a prior motion in the westerly direction.     


The Gobi desert is over 2000 km away from Tunguska...the explosion was seen again clearly...no refraction/reflection...the facts are very clear...       
Title: Re: Photographic Evidence of Curvature Beyond the Visible Horizon
Post by: sandokhan on September 28, 2011, 06:49:57 AM
And we all waiting for you to answer:

And pitroid tech, the water cannot stay curved because gravity is not a pull or attractive...please read again:

Sun and moon, comets, planets, satellites, and meteorites - all the heavenly host - air and water, mountain massifs and sea tides, each and all of them disobey the law of laws which is supposed to know no exception.

GASES

The ingredients of the air, oxygen, nitrogen, argon and other gases, though not in a compound but in a mixture, are found in equal proportions at various levels of the atmosphere despite great differences in specific weights. The explanation accepted in science is this: Swift winds keep the gases thoroughly mixed, so that except for water-vapor the composition of the atmosphere is the same throughout the troposphere to a high degree of approximation. This explanation cannot be true. If it were true, then the moment the wind subsides, the nitrogen should stream upward, and the oxygen should drop, preceded by the argon. If winds are caused by a difference in weight between warm and cold air, the difference in weight between heavy gases high in the atmosphere and light gases at the lower levels should create storms, which would subside only after they had carried each gas to its natural place in accordance with its gravity or specific weight. But nothing of the kind happens.

When some aviators expressed the belief that pockets of noxious gas are in the air, the scientists replied:

There are no pockets of noxious gas. No single gas, and no other likely mixture of gases, has, at ordinary temperatures and pressures, the same density as atmospheric air. Therefore, a pocket of foreign gas in that atmosphere would almost certainly either bob up like a balloon, or sink like a stone in water.

Why, then, do not the atmospheric gases separate and stay apart in accordance with the specific gravities?

Ozone, though heavier than oxygen, is absent in the lower layers of the atmosphere, is present in the upper layers, and is not subject to the mixing effect of the wind. The presence of ozone high in the atmosphere suggests that oxygen must be still higher: As oxygen is less dense than ozone, it will tend to rise to even greater heights. Nowhere is it asked why ozone does not descend of its own weight or at least why it is not mixed by the wind with other gases.


CLOUDS AND MIST

Water, though eight hundred times heavier than air, is held in droplets, by the millions of tons, miles above the ground. Clouds and mist are composed of droplets which defy gravitation.


And remember, the trajectories of the clouds clearly show that the Earth could not and cannot rotate around its own axis:

http://theflatearthsociety.net/talk/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=1143


BAROMETRIC PRESSURE PARADOX

The weight of the atmosphere is constantly changing as the changing barometric pressure indicates. Low pressure areas are not necessarily encircled by high pressure belts. The semidiurnal changes in barometric pressure are not explainable by the mechanistic principles of gravitation and the heat effect of solar radiation. The cause of these variations is unknown.

It has been known now for two and a half centuries, that there are more or less daily variations in the height of the barometer, culminating in two maxima and two minima during the course of 24 hours.  The same observation has been made and puzzled over at every station at which pressure records were kept and studied, but without success in finding for it the complete physical explanation. In speaking of the diurnal and semidiurnal variations of the barometer, Lord Rayleigh says: The relative magnitude of the latter [semidiurnal variations], as observed at most parts of the earth's surface, is still a mystery, all the attempted explanations being illusory.

One maximum is at 10 a.m., the other at 10 p.m.; the two minima are at 4 a.m. and 4 p.m. The heating effect of the sun can explain neither the time when the maxima appear nor the time of the minima of these semidiurnal variations. If the pressure becomes lower without the air becoming lighter through a lateral expansion due to heat, this must mean that the same mass of air gravitates with changing force at different hours.

The lowest pressure is near the equator, in the belt of the doldrums. Yet the troposphere is highest at the equator, being on the average about 18 km. high there; it is lower in the moderate latitudes, and only 6 km. high above the ground at the poles.


Here are many more examples, pitroidtech:

http://theflatearthsociety.net/talk/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=1183&start=15#p35541
http://theflatearthsociety.net/talk/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=1183&start=15#p35542


You had no idea about the Barometric Pressure Paradox, or about the fact that gases in the atmosphere DO NOT obey an attractive gravity law...please explain to us here how the surface of the water would stay curved without attractive gravity...your enthusiasm runs way ahead of your knowledge of real science...please do your homework on refraction and ice crystals...
Title: Re: Photographic Evidence of Curvature Beyond the Visible Horizon
Post by: pitdroidtech on September 28, 2011, 05:09:29 PM
I am talking about optical refraction/reflection...terrestrial refraction won't help you, as I have explained already.

From the very start, I posted here the best terrestrial/atmospheric formula available, it takes everything into account: refraction constant, temperature, altitude, distance, air pressure.

http://ireland.iol.ie/~geniet/eng/refract.htm#Terrestrial



The equations for Terrestrial refraction that you are working from specifically exclude affects due to inversions:

Quote
Remember that the above does not include atmospheric conditions like convective boundary layers and inversions
Title: Re: Photographic Evidence of Curvature Beyond the Visible Horizon
Post by: pitdroidtech on September 28, 2011, 06:12:47 PM
And we all waiting for you to answer:

And pitroid tech, the water cannot stay curved because gravity is not a pull or attractive...please read again:

Sun and moon, comets, planets, satellites, and meteorites - all the heavenly host - air and water, mountain massifs and sea tides, each and all of them disobey the law of laws which is supposed to know no exception.
This is complete rubbish.  There is no evidence of any of this, you are plucking at straws. In fact all of the above, the movements of the planets, the shapes of galaxies, the behaviour of meteorites, the design of satellites ALL confirm gravitational theory very nicely.

There may still be some things not understood about gravity, but that which we do understand is confirmed thorough observation and experiment.

.please do your homework on refraction and ice crystals...
I answered this already. Please do your homework properly

About the other points you raise:

1. Ozone is created in the upper atmosphere.  As it falls back to earth it degrades back to oxygen.

2. Nitrogen is only 3% lighter than air.  This along with the constant state of motion of the air in the atmosphere (below the stratosphere, air is constantly on the move), means any particle are held in suspension, much like shaking a bottle of oil and water prevents the oil and water from settling out to different layers.

These facts are well studied by climate scientists.  As often is the case with your submissions, they are cut and pasted from some website which you have failed to quote the source for, and I wouldn't be surprised if, like your theories on aether and water-filled telescopes, you are working off scientific findings from the middle part of the 1800's which have since been superseded by newer more accurate experiments and research.   

3. Water is not held as droplets it is held as water vapour. 

4. The inputs that determine trajectories of clouds include local affects as well as the Coriolis affect.  Usually local inputs are stronger than the Coriolis affect and cancel out any obvious input from this source.  In large weather formations however, such as Hurricanes and movement of air from areas of low pressure to high pressure or vice versa, the Coriolis affect is evident.

5. The so called Barometric Pressure Paradox is nothing of the sort.  It's well understood and easily explained by science why it is that gases do not settle into layers within the atmosphere.  Gravity survives intact upon scrutiny of the atmosphere and the various gases.

Also, just in case you do (or have) mentioned it in this thread, gravity does not increase over the oceans. This is proven by the recent GRACE satellite.  There are no unexplained gravity anomalies.  Gravity is not disproved.


Most of what we are discussing here is High School Science 101.  It's funny that you ask me to do my research, when you are the one who seems blatantly unaware of the accepted models, which have been proven by experiments and observations too numerous to mention.  By all means, believe the crackpot theorists if you like, but please DO NOT pretend their work is accepted by the mainstream. 
Title: Re: Photographic Evidence of Curvature Beyond the Visible Horizon
Post by: sandokhan on September 29, 2011, 12:56:53 AM
We have discussed already, on this site, the phenomenon called looming...the extension of inversion layers...that is why I invited you to do your homework...your only hope was terrestrial refraction...

Remember?

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=39108.msg983508#msg983508

We discussed it, in fact, in relation to our discussion here:  that the County Courthouse of Racine can be seen from some 128 km distance.


A very strong inversion is necessary before the superior mirage is noticeable. There is no analogue to the heated surface and sharp temperature gradient above it in this case, so the superior mirage with crossing of rays and reflection is seldom observed. The superior mirage is also called the polar mirage, because it is most frequently observed in that region, over a very cold surface.

(http://einhornpress.com/images/LOOMING%20ILLUSTRATION%20jpeg.JPG)

Ánd here is a table with what can be expected in this looming phenomenon:

(http://einhornpress.com/images/LINE%20OF%20SIGHT%20RANGE%20CHART%20JPEG.JPG)


That is why I did not bring looming in discussion here...it won't help at all...your best bet was terrestrial refraction, and the formula clearly indicates it would be impossible to see any building in both Racine and Milwaukee from Holland.

Clear, very precise demonstration...the only rubbish can be found in your messages, and plenty of it...


Therefore, the surface of lake Michigan, over a distance of 128 km, is completely flat.

To what altitude should you ascend to actually see the County Courthouse, from Holland? EXACTLY! To no less than 871 meters.

From Holland it is absolutely impossible to see anything from Milwaukee or Racine; the curvature measures some 321 meters, and the visual obstacle measures 984 meters; no looming or terrestrial refraction will help you, as we have seen...



The trajectory of the ball lightning was precisely seen from both Irkutsk and the Gobi desert.

The facts again:

The first report of the explosion was in the Irkutsk paper dated July 2, 1908, published two days after the explosion:

...the peasants saw a body shining very brightly (too bright for the naked eye) with a bluish-white light.... The body was in the form of 'a pipe', i.e. cylindrical. The sky was cloudless, except that low down on the horizon, in the direction in which this glowing body was observed, a small dark cloud was noticed. It was hot and dry and when the shining body approached the ground (which was covered with forest at this point) it seemed to be pulverized, and in its place a loud crash, not like thunder, but as if from the fall of large stones or from gunfire was heard. All the buildings shook and at the same time a forked tongue of flames broke through the cloud.


The sky was cloudless; the precise trajectory was observed, and the explosion itself, no refraction/reflection...

The visual obstacle measures 67.5 km. It is the end of the round earth theory.


And now even more proofs about the Tunguska explosion.
http://www.halexandria.org/dward232.htm

Herdsman in the Gobi desert to the south described a fireball streaking across the sky along a flight path (based on a later reconstruction) at about 10o, just slightly east of true north.  Along this direction, the object approached Keshma from the south.  Then the object was observed by others moving very nearly due east toward Preobrazhenka.  This was followed by the object moving slightly north of due west toward Vanavara.  The explosion itself was oval shaped, suggesting a prior motion in the westerly direction.     


The Gobi desert is over 2000 km away from Tunguska...the explosion was seen again clearly...no refraction/reflection...the facts are very clear...       


Let us calculate the precise numbers.

Elevation of the Gobi desert: 900 - 1500 meters; to satisfy the RE requirements, we will ascend to 2000 meters.

Distance to Tunguska, over 2000 km...

Then the visual obstacle will measure: 275 KILOMETERS (two hundred and seventy-five kilometers).


The precise trajectory and explosion seen all the way from the Gobi desert, despite a 275 km visual obstacle (on a spherical earth)...it is over for the round earth theory...



Title: Re: Photographic Evidence of Curvature Beyond the Visible Horizon
Post by: sandokhan on September 29, 2011, 01:16:10 AM
It is not a good idea to argue with me about gravity...

In fact all of the above, the movements of the planets, the shapes of galaxies, the behaviour of meteorites, the design of satellites ALL confirm gravitational theory very nicely.

Again, you did not do your homework...not at all...you have no idea what attractive gravity involves...you are just repeating what you have learned in high school, with no rational, critical thinking about these facts...please wake up.

IMPOSSIBILITY OF A SPHERICALLY SHAPED SUN

The atmospheric pressure of the sun, instead of being 27.47 times greater than the atmospheric pressure of the earth (as expected because of the gravitational pull of the large solar mass), is much smaller: the pressure there varies according to the layers of the atmosphere from one-tenth to one-thousandth of the barometric pressure on the earth; at the base of the reversing layer the pressure is 0.005 of the atmospheric pressure at sea level on the earth; in the sunspots, the pressure drops to one ten-thousandth of the pressure on the earth.

The pressure of light is sometimes referred to as to explain the low atmospheric pressure on the sun. At the surface of the sun, the pressure of light must be 2.75 milligrams per square centimeter; a cubic centimeter of one gram weight at the surface of the earth would weigh 27.47 grams at the surface of the sun. Thus the attraction by the solar mass is 10,000 times greater than the repulsion of the solar light. Recourse is taken to the supposition that if the pull and the pressure are calculated for very small masses, the pressure exceeds the pull, one acting in proportion to the surface, the other in proportion to the volume. But if this is so, why is the lowest pressure of the solar atmosphere observed over the sunspots where the light pressure is least?

Because of its swift rotation, the gaseous sun should have the latitudinal axis greater than the longitudinal, but it does not have it. The sun is one million times larger than the earth, and its day is but twenty-six times longer than the terrestrial day; the swiftness of its rotation at its equator is over 125 km. per minute; at the poles, the velocity approaches zero. Yet the solar disk is not oval but round: the majority of observers even find a small excess in the longitudinal axis of the sun. The planets act in the same manner as the rotation of the sun, imposing a latitudinal pull on the luminary.

Gravitation that acts in all directions equally leaves unexplained the spherical shape of the sun. As we saw in the preceding section, the gases of the solar atmosphere are not under a strong pressure, but under a very weak one. Therefore, the computation, according to which the ellipsoidity of the sun, that is lacking, should be slight, is not correct either. Since the gases are under a very low gravitational pressure, the centrifugal force of rotation must have formed quite a flat sun.


What were you saying?  the movements of the planets, the shapes of galaxies, the behaviour of meteorites, the design of satellites ALL confirm gravitational theory very nicely....not by a long shot...


Perturbations of planets due to their reciprocal action are pronounced in repulsion as well as attraction. A perturbation displacing a planet or a satellite by a few seconds of arc must direct it from its orbit. It is assumed that the orbits of all planets and satellites did not change because of perturbations. A regulating force emanating from the primary appears to act. In the gravitational system there is no place left for such regulating forces.


The perturbating activity appears unstable in the major planets, Jupiter and Saturn: Between the minimum of the year 1898-99 and the maximum of the 1916-17 there was found an 18 percent difference (see the reference). As these planets did not increase in mass in the meantime, this change is not understandable from the point of view of the theory of gravitation, which includes the principle of the immutable gravitational constant.

J. Zenneck, “Gravitation” in Encyclop. der Mathem. Wiss., vol. V, part I p.44.

The pressure of light emanating from the sun should slowly change the orbits of the satellites, pushing them more than the primaries, and acting constantly, this pressure should have the effect of acceleration: the pressure of light per unit of mass is greater in relation to the satellites than in relation to their primaries. But this change fails to materialize; a regulating force seems to overcome this unequal light pressure on primaries and secondaries.


GALAXIES DO NOT OBEY AN ATTRACTIVE GRAVITY LAW, on the contrary...

http://theflatearthsociety.net/talk/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=551#p24643


METEORITES DO NOT OBEY AN ATTRACTIVE GRAVITY LAW:

Meteors, after entering the terrestrial atmosphere at about 200 km. above the ground (in the official theory), are violently displaced toward the east. These displacements of the meteors are usually ascribed to winds blowing in the upper atmosphere. The atmospheric pressure at a height of 45 km. is supposed to be but “a small fraction of one millimeter of mercury.” On the other hand, the velocity with which the meteors approach the earth is between 15 and 75 km. per second, on the average about 40 km. per second or over 140,000 km. per hour. If winds of 150 km. per hour velocity were permanently blowing at the height where the meteors become visible, it would not be possible for such winds of rarefied atmosphere to visibly deflect stones falling at the rate of 140,000 km. per hour.
Approaching the earth, the meteorites suddenly slow down and turn aside, and some are even repelled into space. “A few meteors give the appearance of penetrating into our atmosphere and then leaving it, ricocheting as it were.”

COMETS DO NOT OBEY AN ATTRACTIVE GRAVITY LAW:

The tails of the comets do not obey the principle of gravitation and are repelled by the sun. “There is beyond question some profound secret and mystery of nature concerned in the phenomenon of their tails” ; enormous sweep which it (the tail) makes round the sun in perihelion, in the manner of a straight and rigid rod, is in defiance of the law of gravitation, nay, even of the recorded laws of motion” Comets’ tails are clearly subject to some strong repulsive force, which drives the matter composing them away from the sun with enormously high velocities” (W.H. Pickering)


Ozone is created in the upper atmosphere.  As it falls back to earth it degrades back to oxygen.


DO YOU UNDERSTAND WHAT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT HERE? Certainly you do not...

Ozone-oxygen cycle: the atomic oxygen IMMEDIATELY REACTS WITH other oxygen molecules, to form ozone again.

The overall effect of the ozone-oxygen cycle is to convert penetrating UV radiation into heat, WITHOUT ANY NET LOSS OF OZONE.

Thus, the ozone layer is kept in a stable balance. And, moreover, in the stratosphere, the ozone layer concentrations are about 2 to 8 parts per million, which is much higher than in the lower atmosphere.


Now, we get back to what I told you before.

Ozone, though heavier than oxygen, is absent in the lower layers of the atmosphere, is present in the upper layers, and is not subject to the mixing effect of the wind. The presence of ozone high in the atmosphere suggests that oxygen must be still higher: As oxygen is less dense than ozone, it will tend to rise to even greater heights. Nowhere is it asked why ozone does not descend of its own weight or at least why it is not mixed by the wind with other gases.

With attractive gravity, OZONE WOULD DESCEND IMMEDIATELY AS ITS SPECIFIC WEIGHT IS GREATER THAN THAT OF OXYGEN.


Nitrogen is only 3% lighter than air.  This along with the constant state of motion of the air in the atmosphere (below the stratosphere, air is constantly on the move), means any particle are held in suspension, much like shaking a bottle of oil and water prevents the oil and water from settling out to different layers.

Please give up these childish, unscientific notions...

IF THERE IS ATTRACTIVE GRAVITY, THEN GASES MUST SEPARATE INTO LAYERS, ACCORDING TO THEIR SPECIFIC WEIGHTS.

Then the moment the wind subsides, the nitrogen should stream upward, and the oxygen should drop, preceded by the argon. If winds are caused by a difference in weight between warm and cold air, the difference in weight between heavy gases high in the atmosphere and light gases at the lower levels should create storms, which would subside only after they had carried each gas to its natural place in accordance with its gravity or specific weight. But nothing of the kind happens.

When some aviators expressed the belief that pockets of noxious gas are in the air, the scientists replied:

There are no pockets of noxious gas. No single gas, and no other likely mixture of gases, has, at ordinary temperatures and pressures, the same density as atmospheric air. Therefore, a pocket of foreign gas in that atmosphere would almost certainly either bob up like a balloon, or sink like a stone in water.

Why, then, do not the atmospheric gases separate and stay apart in accordance with the specific gravities?

End of story. Gases do not obey an attractive gravity law.


Water is not held as droplets it is held as water vapour. 

You are dreaming, again...

DEFINITION OF A CLOUD:

A CLOUD IS A VISIBLE MASS OF DROPLETS. The small droplets of water WHICH DO MAKE UP A CLOUD, will have 0.01 mm in diameter.
The tiny particles of water are very densely packed, and may even combine to form larger water molecules, which ARE denser than the surrounding air.

IT IS RIGHT AT THIS POINT, WHERE WE ADDRESS THE ISSUE YOU DODGED: Water, though eight hundred times heavier than air, is held in droplets, by the millions of tons, miles above the ground. Clouds and mist are composed of droplets which defy gravitation. For quite a while, that cloud will hold those droplets of water, DEFYING ATTRACTIVE GRAVITY, that is what are talking about here.

Let us take a look at the weight of some clouds.

Clouds can have a height ranging from 50 meters to over 5 km, and a length ranging from 100 meters to 1000 km; a cumulus cloud, 1 kilometer in diameter, will weigh 5 MILLION TONS, or about the weight of 1 million cars. A cumulonimbus cloud, 5 kilometers in height, and having a diameter of 15 kilometers, will actually weigh 1 BILLION TONS.


Clouds and mist DO defy attractive gravity...


The inputs that determine trajectories of clouds include local affects as well as the Coriolis affect.  Usually local inputs are stronger than the Coriolis affect and cancel out any obvious input from this source.  In large weather formations however, such as Hurricanes and movement of air from areas of low pressure to high pressure or vice versa, the Coriolis affect is evident.


DO YOUR HOMEWORK...here are the facts on the GEOCENTRIC CORIOLIS EFFECT:

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg953747#msg953747

You have no knowledge of Mach's Principle...please study and give up your ignorance...


The so called Barometric Pressure Paradox is nothing of the sort.  It's well understood and easily explained by science why it is that gases do not settle into layers within the atmosphere.  Gravity survives intact upon scrutiny of the atmosphere and the various gases.

BUT IT IS. The barometric pressure paradox CANNOT BE EXPLAINED AT ALL BY SCIENCE.

BAROMETRIC PRESSURE PARADOX data:

http://www-das.uwyo.edu/~geerts/cwx/notes/chap01/diurnal.html

Surface pressure measurements in Taiwan, for example, (at 25 degrees N) are least around 4am and (especially) 4 pm Local Standard Time, and most around (especially) 10am, and 10pm LST; the amplitude of the semidiurnal cycle is about 1.4 hPa.

The weight of the atmosphere is constantly changing as the changing barometric pressure indicates. Low pressure areas are not necessarily encircled by high pressure belts. The semidiurnal changes in barometric pressure are not explainable by the mechanistic principles of gravitation and the heat effect of solar radiation. The cause of these variations is unknown.

It has been known now for two and a half centuries, that there are more or less daily variations in the height of the barometer, culminating in two maxima and two minima during the course of 24 hours.  The same observation has been made and puzzled over at every station at which pressure records were kept and studied, but without success in finding for it the complete physical explanation. In speaking of the diurnal and semidiurnal variations of the barometer, Lord Rayleigh says: The relative magnitude of the latter [semidiurnal variations], as observed at most parts of the earth's surface, is still a mystery, all the attempted explanations being illusory.

One maximum is at 10 a.m., the other at 10 p.m.; the two minima are at 4 a.m. and 4 p.m. The heating effect of the sun can explain neither the time when the maxima appear nor the time of the minima of these semidiurnal variations. If the pressure becomes lower without the air becoming lighter through a lateral expansion due to heat, this must mean that the same mass of air gravitates with changing force at different hours.


The barometric pressure paradox CANNOT BE explained in terms of attractive gravity...


Also, just in case you do (or have) mentioned it in this thread, gravity does not increase over the oceans. This is proven by the recent GRACE satellite.  There are no unexplained gravity anomalies.  Gravity is not disproved.

Again, you did not your homework...


Mountainous masses do not exert the gravitational pull expected by the theory of gravitation. The influence of the largest mass on the earth, the Himalaya, was carefully investigated with plumb line on the Indian side. The plumb line is not deflected as calculated in advance. The attraction of the mountain-ground thus computed on the theory of gravitation, is considerably greater than is necessary to explain the anomalies observed. This singular conclusion, I confess, at first surprised me very much. (G. B. Airy.) Out of this embarrassment grew the idea of isostasy. This hypothesis explains the lack of gravitational pull by the mountains in the following way. The interior of the globe is supposed to be fluid, and the crust is supposed to float on it. The inner fluid or magma is heavier or denser, the crust is lighter. Where there is a mountainous elevation, there must also be a protuberance beneath the mountains, this immersed protuberance being of lesser mass than the magma of equal volume. The way seismic waves travel, and computations of the elasticity of the interior of the earth, force the conclusion that the earth must be as rigid as steel; but if the earth is solid for only 2000 miles from the surface, the crust must be more rigid than steel. These conclusions are not reconcilable with the principle of isostasy, which presupposes a fluid magma less than 60 miles below the surface of the earth. There remains a contradiction between isostasy and geophysical data.


Over the oceans, the gravitational pull is greater than over the continents, though according to the theory of gravitation the reverse should be true; the hypothesis of isostasy also is unable to explain this phenomenon. The gravitational pull drops at the coast line of the continents. Furthermore, the distribution of gravitation in the sea often has the peculiarity of being stronger where the water is deeper. In the whole Gulf and Caribbean region the generalization seems to hold that the deeper the water, the more strongly positive the anomalies.

As far as observations could establish, the sea tides do not influence the plumb line, which is contrary to what is expected. Observations on reservoirs of water, where the mass of water could be increased and decreased, gave none of the results anticipated on the basis of the theory of gravitation.


On the basis of newtonian gravity, it might be expected that gravitational attraction over continents, and especially mountains, would be higher than over oceans. In reality, the gravity on top of large mountains is less than expected on the basis of their visible mass while over ocean surfaces it is unexpectedly high. To explain this, the concept of isostasy was developed: it was postulated that low-density rock exists 30 to 100 km beneath mountains, which buoys them up, while denser rock exists 30 to 100 km beneath the ocean bottom. However, this hypothesis is far from proven. Physicist Maurice Allais commented: There is an excess of gravity over the ocean and a deficiency above the continents. The theory of isostasis provided only a pseudoexplanation of this.

The standard, simplistic theory of isostasy is contradicted by the fact that in regions of tectonic activity vertical movements often intensify gravity anomalies rather than acting to restore isostatic equilibrium. For example, the Greater Caucasus shows a positive gravity anomaly (usually interpreted to mean it is overloaded with excess mass), yet it is rising rather than subsiding.


Conclusion: there is no such thing as attractive gravity. The surface of the water cannot stay curved, due to attractive gravity. Since there is no attractive gravity, the only other option is a pressure type of gravity, and then the shape of the earth must be different, in fact it must be flat (the pressure gravity required to keep the oceans/seas in place would crush anything else to the ground).
Title: Re: Photographic Evidence of Curvature Beyond the Visible Horizon
Post by: pitdroidtech on September 29, 2011, 03:13:49 AM

Ánd here is a table with what can be expected in this looming phenomenon:

(http://einhornpress.com/images/LINE%20OF%20SIGHT%20RANGE%20CHART%20JPEG.JPG)

That chart shows how far one can see due to the curvature of the earth, it has NOTHING TO DO with atmosphere or refraction.
 
Plug the same figures into this calculator, which uses ONLY the curvature of the earth (curvature as would be evident if the earth is the size that science calculates it to be).  You will see the chart is only talking about line of sight due to curvature.

Here is a quote from the page where you found the chart:
Quote
The chart above, copied from Radka's Electric Mirror, from its collection of hundreds of illustrations and photographs, indicates the distance an object may be seen at a certain height of both observer and object like a lighthouse beacon—at sea.  Obviously, no consideration is given here of any effects of weather or outstanding type of light refraction—called "looming."


Title: Re: Photographic Evidence of Curvature Beyond the Visible Horizon
Post by: sandokhan on September 29, 2011, 03:22:09 AM
Your desperate attempt to link looming with the fact that a 40 meter building was seen from Holland, over a distance of 128 km, shows that you have nothing else at your disposal.

You have been shown, with the most precise proofs, that gravity is not attractive, therefore the water could not stay curved on a surface of a round earth.

Again, my answer will be the same as here http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=39108.msg1249791#msg1249791 :

YOU HAVE NOT PROVIDED ANY FORMULA TO BACK YOUR WILD CLAIMS!

LOOMING CANNOT CHANGE THE FACTS: there is a 984 meter visual obstacle over a distance of 128 km, from Holland to Racine.

WHY do you keep bullshitting everybody here?

And as stated, the type of superior mirage that occurs mostly in polar regions is not the kind of superior mirage that was seen at Racine.

WHERE IS YOUR PROOF, THE PRECISE FORMULA?


There is no formula whatsoever which will explain the fact that a 40 meter building, can be seen from a 128 km distance.


Just as in the case of attractive gravity, YOU HAVE NO SCIENTIFIC DATA AT YOUR DISPOSAL, AND YOU ARE MAKING UP FACTS AS YOU GO ALONG, THINKING IT WILL WORK. IT WON'T. Not with me.

Please research your bullshit claims very carefully, using any formula you can find; it won't help you, not at all.

You cannot see a 40 meter building, given the 984 meter visual obstacle.


Now, the chart does provide an indication of what could be expected, also, in the looming phenomenon.

You already have at your disposal the terrestrial refraction formula, which does not help at all.


Please understand: there is no looming formula which can help you...not over a distance of 128 km...with a 40 meter building...be my guest, and do the research, before coming overhere with bullshit claims...looming cannot work miracles, and what you need IS A MIRACLE!

To what altitude should you ascend to actually see the County Courthouse, from Holland? EXACTLY! To no less than 871 meters.

From Holland it is absolutely impossible to see anything from Milwaukee or Racine; the curvature measures some 321 meters, and the visual obstacle measures 984 meters; no looming or terrestrial refraction will help you, as we have seen...



The trajectory of the ball lightning was precisely seen from both Irkutsk and the Gobi desert.

The facts again:

The first report of the explosion was in the Irkutsk paper dated July 2, 1908, published two days after the explosion:

...the peasants saw a body shining very brightly (too bright for the naked eye) with a bluish-white light.... The body was in the form of 'a pipe', i.e. cylindrical. The sky was cloudless, except that low down on the horizon, in the direction in which this glowing body was observed, a small dark cloud was noticed. It was hot and dry and when the shining body approached the ground (which was covered with forest at this point) it seemed to be pulverized, and in its place a loud crash, not like thunder, but as if from the fall of large stones or from gunfire was heard. All the buildings shook and at the same time a forked tongue of flames broke through the cloud.

The sky was cloudless; the precise trajectory was observed, and the explosion itself, no refraction/reflection...

The visual obstacle measures 67.5 km. It is the end of the round earth theory.


And now even more proofs about the Tunguska explosion.
http://www.halexandria.org/dward232.htm

Herdsman in the Gobi desert to the south described a fireball streaking across the sky along a flight path (based on a later reconstruction) at about 10o, just slightly east of true north.  Along this direction, the object approached Keshma from the south.  Then the object was observed by others moving very nearly due east toward Preobrazhenka.  This was followed by the object moving slightly north of due west toward Vanavara.  The explosion itself was oval shaped, suggesting a prior motion in the westerly direction.     


The Gobi desert is over 2000 km away from Tunguska...the explosion was seen again clearly...no refraction/reflection...the facts are very clear...       


Let us calculate the precise numbers.

Elevation of the Gobi desert: 900 - 1500 meters; to satisfy the RE requirements, we will ascend to 2000 meters.

Distance to Tunguska, over 2000 km...

Then the visual obstacle will measure: 275 KILOMETERS (two hundred and seventy-five kilometers).


The precise trajectory and explosion seen all the way from the Gobi desert, despite a 275 km visual obstacle (on a spherical earth)...it is over for the round earth theory...


AND YOU HAVE NOT ANSWERED THE FACT THAT THERE IS NO ATTRACTIVE GRAVITY...my last message here...
Title: Re: Photographic Evidence of Curvature Beyond the Visible Horizon
Post by: pitdroidtech on September 29, 2011, 03:23:19 AM
COMETS DO NOT OBEY AN ATTRACTIVE GRAVITY LAW:

The tails of the comets do not obey the principle of gravitation and are repelled by the sun. “There is beyond question some profound secret and mystery of nature concerned in the phenomenon of their tails” ; enormous sweep which it (the tail) makes round the sun in perihelion, in the manner of a straight and rigid rod, is in defiance of the law of gravitation, nay, even of the recorded laws of motion” Comets’ tails are clearly subject to some strong repulsive force, which drives the matter composing them away from the sun with enormously high velocities” (W.H. Pickering)

Wrong.  The above quote is from John Herschel's 'Outlines of Astronomy' 1849.  Since then, it has been shown that a comet's tail is pushed away from the sun by solar wind.  There is no defiance of gravity.
Title: Re: Photographic Evidence of Curvature Beyond the Visible Horizon
Post by: sandokhan on September 29, 2011, 03:30:27 AM
You have not answered any of the facts I provided for you...with this exception...your last comment.

Solar wind presupposes the existence of a spherically shaped sun...I did prove to you that there is no way the Sun could have attained a spherical shape...please read carefully...

And the solar wind is just a pseudoexplanation, given the solar paradoxes, that is, the neutrinos that cannot be detected, the faint young sun paradox.


Clouds and gases do not obey an attractive gravity law. The barometric pressure paradox shows the same thing.

Since you do not have at your disposal anything else, you will superficially try to divert attention using random quotes from my messages; in the same message I proved to you that the sun could not have attained a spherical shape to start with. Did you also quote that section of my message?
Title: Re: Photographic Evidence of Curvature Beyond the Visible Horizon
Post by: pitdroidtech on September 29, 2011, 04:00:05 AM

YOU HAVE NOT PROVIDED ANY FORMULA TO BACK YOUR WILD CLAIMS!

Quote
If the vertical temperature gradient is +12.9°C per 100 meters (reminder: Positive sign means temperature gets hotter as one goes higher), then horizontal light rays will just follow the curvature of the Earth, and the horizon will appear flat. If the gradient is less the rays are not bent enough and get lost in space. That is the normal situation of a spherical, convex horizon. But if the gradient gets larger, say +18°C per 100 meters, an observer would see the horizon as concave, the right and left ends turned upwards as if one were standing at the bottom of a saucer
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mirage


Quote
In the figure at the left, the heavy arc denotes the surface of the Earth, with center at C, and the lighter arcs AB and A'B' concentric with it represent the sides of a beam of light propagating at constant height above the surface, from AA' to BB'. We can regard AA' and BB' as wavefronts of the (bending) horizontal beam at two different places; the direction of propagation is perpendicular to the wavefront. (Equivalently, we can say that the direction of propagation of a horizontal beam must always be perpendicular to the local vertical; the radial lines CAA' and CBB' radiating from the center of the Earth are the local verticals at A and B respectively.)

Evidently, to make the beam follow the Earth's curvature, its lower edge AB must travel more slowly than its upper edge A'B'. The speed of propagation is in fact just inversely proportional to the refractive index, n. As the distance to be traversed by our circulating beam is proportional to the distance R  from the center of the Earth, we require that 1/n (which is proportional to the speed) be proportional to R ; or, in other words, we need the product nR  to be constant, independent of height above the Earth. (This will make the “optical path length” along AB the same as along A'B'.)

[If you find this argument too superficial to be convincing, you can go read the more rigorous derivations of the nR = constant condition by Biot (1836), by Auer and Standish (2000), or one of the papers cited in my “horizontal-ray paradox” file, such as Bravais (1856) or Thomson (1872). There's also a wonderful mathematical treatment of circulating rays by Kummer (1860); a French translation of it by Verdet (1861) is available on Gallica.]

To have nR  remain constant with height, n must decrease by 1 part in 6.4 × 106 for every meter of height, as R = 6400 km = 6.4 × 106 m. But the refractivity ( n − 1 ) is only about 1/3200 of n ; so the density of the air [which is proportional to ( n − 1 ), not to n] must fall by about 3200/6.4 × 106 m, or 1 part in 2000 for every meter.

Now, the decrease in density due to the decrease in pressure with height (1 part in 8000 per meter) is only 1/4 of this, so we need 3 times as much decrease from the temperature gradient, or 3 parts in 8000 per meter. That means the temperature must increase by 3 parts in 8000 of the 300 K, or about 900/8000 of a degree = 0.11° per meter. So a temperature inversion (i.e., increasing upward instead of the usual decrease) of about 0.11°/m will produce a circulating beam or ray.

As a check, we can do the arithmetic a little differently. Because the refractive index n decreases by 1 part in a million per degree, and we need a decrease in n of 1 part in 6.4 million per meter, we would need about 1/6.4 of a degree per meter if the pressure stayed constant. But, as the pressure alone gives an effect equivalent to 3/80 of a degree per meter, we really need only ( 1/6.4 − 3/80 ) or, expressing the fractions as decimals, about 0.16 − 0.04 = 0.12°/m.
(http://mintaka.sdsu.edu/GF/explain/atmos_refr/figs/circ.gif)
http://mintaka.sdsu.edu/GF/explain/atmos_refr/bending.html
San Diego State University

Further scientific work showing how looming can follow the curve of the earth:

William Latham (1798)
Wegener (1918)
J. de Graaff Hunter (1913)
Title: Re: Photographic Evidence of Curvature Beyond the Visible Horizon
Post by: pitdroidtech on September 29, 2011, 04:53:36 AM
You have not answered any of the facts I provided for you...with this exception...your last comment.

Solar wind presupposes the existence of a spherically shaped sun...I did prove to you that there is no way the Sun could have attained a spherical shape...please read carefully...

And the solar wind is just a pseudoexplanation, given the solar paradoxes, that is, the neutrinos that cannot be detected, the faint young sun paradox.


Clouds and gases do not obey an attractive gravity law. The barometric pressure paradox shows the same thing.

Since you do not have at your disposal anything else, you will superficially try to divert attention using random quotes from my messages; in the same message I proved to you that the sun could not have attained a spherical shape to start with. Did you also quote that section of my message?
I have a life.  I am responding to your quotes as I get time.  I am inclined not to bother, since every quote of yours that I have analysed so far is based on science from the 1800's and is shown to be flawed.

Regarding your response to the solar wind: Solar wind is composed primarily of electrons and protons.  Protons have mass.

Regarding your claim the sun is not spherical, there is ample evidence that the sun is spherical, most obvious of which is the astronomical observations made by telescopes since Galileo's times.  Sunspot's have been observed rotating across the sun's surface  and changing shape proportionately as they only could on a spherical surface.

The absence of an explanation of why the photosphere is not at the  pressure as it should be due to gravity isn't proof the sun is not spherical; it's simply a fact which yet requires explanation.  Just as your inability to grasp that the failure of ozone to settle out as you expect that it should can be easily explained ie: ozone falls to layers where there is less penatration of ultravoilet light, which allows it to degrade to oxygen which combines to form air (O2).

Indeed an explanation is offered, which you dismiss casually:
Quote
But if this is so, why is the lowest pressure of the solar atmosphere observed over the sunspots where the light pressure is least?

Seems to me, sunspots actually represent deep holes in the sun's surface, and hence may offer less gravitational pull?  Or perhaps the electromagnetic field has something to do with it.  I confess don't know, I would need to do more research in this area, but I can promise you that I will not be accepting your un-referenced cut and pastes without further information.   Show me a source, and put your quotes in quotation marks atleast so I know who is saying this (because I'm not going to take your word for it), then I will come up with a cohesive response.

I'm not playing tit for tat here; if you want me to respond to something, give me your sources, otherwise I might as well be a puppet dancing on the strings you manipulate.


Title: Re: Photographic Evidence of Curvature Beyond the Visible Horizon
Post by: pitdroidtech on September 29, 2011, 04:57:11 AM
WHY do you keep bullshitting everybody here?
I'm not bullshitting anyone here.  I am quoting current reputable mainstream sources for my information.

You on the other hand are quoting 19th century disproved theories....
Title: Re: Photographic Evidence of Curvature Beyond the Visible Horizon
Post by: NTheGreat on September 29, 2011, 04:59:11 AM
 
And now even more proofs about the Tunguska explosion.
http://www.halexandria.org/dward232.htm

Herdsman in the Gobi desert to the south described a fireball streaking across the sky along a flight path (based on a later reconstruction) at about 10o, just slightly east of true north.  Along this direction, the object approached Keshma from the south.  Then the object was observed by others moving very nearly due east toward Preobrazhenka.  This was followed by the object moving slightly north of due west toward Vanavara.  The explosion itself was oval shaped, suggesting a prior motion in the westerly direction.     


The Gobi desert is over 2000 km away from Tunguska...the explosion was seen again clearly...no refraction/reflection...the facts are very clear...       


Let us calculate the precise numbers.

Elevation of the Gobi desert: 900 - 1500 meters; to satisfy the RE requirements, we will ascend to 2000 meters.

Distance to Tunguska, over 2000 km...

Then the visual obstacle will measure: 275 KILOMETERS (two hundred and seventy-five kilometers).


The precise trajectory and explosion seen all the way from the Gobi desert, despite a 275 km visual obstacle (on a spherical earth)...it is over for the round earth theory...

If you head up from the Gobi desert on a heading of around 10 degrees, you'll find you don't intersect the Tunguska area at all.
Title: Re: Photographic Evidence of Curvature Beyond the Visible Horizon
Post by: pitdroidtech on September 29, 2011, 07:22:14 AM
It is not a good idea to argue with me about gravity...
WTF....?   Who made you the expert?  As in, show me your peer reviewed articles, and your university degrees.  I challenge you; prove to me just how you are such an authority.  Or are you just an ordinary Joe like me with an interest in science and no more reason than anyone else to claim righteousness on the topic of gravity..?

METEORITES DO NOT OBEY AN ATTRACTIVE GRAVITY LAW:

Meteors, after entering the terrestrial atmosphere at about 200 km. above the ground (in the official theory), are violently displaced toward the east. These displacements of the meteors are usually ascribed to winds blowing in the upper atmosphere. The atmospheric pressure at a height of 45 km. is supposed to be but “a small fraction of one millimeter of mercury.” On the other hand, the velocity with which the meteors approach the earth is between 15 and 75 km. per second, on the average about 40 km. per second or over 140,000 km. per hour. If winds of 150 km. per hour velocity were permanently blowing at the height where the meteors become visible, it would not be possible for such winds of rarefied atmosphere to visibly deflect stones falling at the rate of 140,000 km. per hour.
Approaching the earth, the meteorites suddenly slow down and turn aside, and some are even repelled into space. “A few meteors give the appearance of penetrating into our atmosphere and then leaving it, ricocheting as it were.”

btw, I worked out where you are getting this "no gravity" material.  Solely from the work of Immanuel Velikovsky.  Velikovsky's theories have not been supported by any significant scientist or theorist.  He is alone in his beliefs and never showed any proof of any of his claims.  His understanding of the actual science behinds his claims is poor. Furthermore, he did not support a flat earth.  His theories supported a broadly Copernican model that posited magneto-electrical forces as the cause of the effect we ascribe to gravity.

And despite quoting him solely on 'no gravity', you haven't once quoted the man.  Very poor show old chap.

Re: meteors. The faster they hit the upper layer and the more oblique the angle, the harder the impact.  This is why the space shuttle required such serious shielding, and why for re-entry they need to get the angle just right or they will indeed bounce of the earth's upper atmosphere and back out into space. 

The 'daylight fireball' in August 1972 was filmed bouncing of the earth's atmosphere. 

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=503_1215418331
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1994A%26A...283..287C

It all depends on the angle.  If the angle is too steep though, the meteor will fall towards the earth.  There are no winds blowing in the upper atmosphere, and I have never heard, and can find no reference other than Velikovsky's words, of any theory that meteor's are buffeted by strong winds in the upper atmosphere.  The buffeting they experience is due to friction heating and energising the air around the meteor as it enters, or bounces off the atmosphere. 

Violently displaced towards the east?  The Earth spins from the west to east, hence the sun comes up in the east.  So when a meteor hits the atmosphere, which is travelling east along with the rest of the planet, of course the friction will displace the meteor in this direction.  It's called "wind resistance" aka air pressure.  The same phenomena keeps an airplane aloft.  Not magic.  Not mystery.  Science. 




Title: Re: Photographic Evidence of Curvature Beyond the Visible Horizon
Post by: sandokhan on October 03, 2011, 01:29:45 AM
pitroidtech...your responses, as usual, have very little to do with science...

You have not provided any formula, as I have asked.

We need here a looming formula, which will provide exact answers to your concerns, do I have to do your homework for you?

I have already found such a formula...where is your research on this subject? You posted general facts about thermal inversion, that is very nice of you, but we need the formula itself.


You have not answered to any of the points I raised which do prove that gravity cannot be attractive. The article Cosmos without Gravitation by Velikovsky QUOTES from scientific sources, see the bibliography here:

http://www.varchive.org/ce/cosmos.htm

The fact that a cloud is made up of water droplets which do defy gravitation was commented by Velikovsky, as were the other points he raised, but the scientific facts are beyond dispute, please read carefully. The facts about the atmosphere of the sun, and the sunspots are very well known, as you should know by now.


Ozone is created in the upper atmosphere.  As it falls back to earth it degrades back to oxygen.

DO YOU UNDERSTAND WHAT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT HERE? Certainly you do not...

Ozone-oxygen cycle: the atomic oxygen IMMEDIATELY REACTS WITH other oxygen molecules, to form ozone again.

The overall effect of the ozone-oxygen cycle is to convert penetrating UV radiation into heat, WITHOUT ANY NET LOSS OF OZONE.

Thus, the ozone layer is kept in a stable balance. And, moreover, in the stratosphere, the ozone layer concentrations are about 2 to 8 parts per million, which is much higher than in the lower atmosphere.


Now, we get back to what I told you before.

Ozone, though heavier than oxygen, is absent in the lower layers of the atmosphere, is present in the upper layers, and is not subject to the mixing effect of the wind. The presence of ozone high in the atmosphere suggests that oxygen must be still higher: As oxygen is less dense than ozone, it will tend to rise to even greater heights. Nowhere is it asked why ozone does not descend of its own weight or at least why it is not mixed by the wind with other gases.

With attractive gravity, OZONE WOULD DESCEND IMMEDIATELY AS ITS SPECIFIC WEIGHT IS GREATER THAN THAT OF OXYGEN.


Nitrogen is only 3% lighter than air.  This along with the constant state of motion of the air in the atmosphere (below the stratosphere, air is constantly on the move), means any particle are held in suspension, much like shaking a bottle of oil and water prevents the oil and water from settling out to different layers.

Please give up these childish, unscientific notions...

IF THERE IS ATTRACTIVE GRAVITY, THEN GASES MUST SEPARATE INTO LAYERS, ACCORDING TO THEIR SPECIFIC WEIGHTS.

Then the moment the wind subsides, the nitrogen should stream upward, and the oxygen should drop, preceded by the argon. If winds are caused by a difference in weight between warm and cold air, the difference in weight between heavy gases high in the atmosphere and light gases at the lower levels should create storms, which would subside only after they had carried each gas to its natural place in accordance with its gravity or specific weight. But nothing of the kind happens.

When some aviators expressed the belief that pockets of noxious gas are in the air, the scientists replied:

There are no pockets of noxious gas. No single gas, and no other likely mixture of gases, has, at ordinary temperatures and pressures, the same density as atmospheric air. Therefore, a pocket of foreign gas in that atmosphere would almost certainly either bob up like a balloon, or sink like a stone in water.

Why, then, do not the atmospheric gases separate and stay apart in accordance with the specific gravities?

End of story. Gases do not obey an attractive gravity law.


Water is not held as droplets it is held as water vapour. 

You are dreaming, again...

DEFINITION OF A CLOUD:

A CLOUD IS A VISIBLE MASS OF DROPLETS. The small droplets of water WHICH DO MAKE UP A CLOUD, will have 0.01 mm in diameter.
The tiny particles of water are very densely packed, and may even combine to form larger water molecules, which ARE denser than the surrounding air.

IT IS RIGHT AT THIS POINT, WHERE WE ADDRESS THE ISSUE YOU DODGED: Water, though eight hundred times heavier than air, is held in droplets, by the millions of tons, miles above the ground. Clouds and mist are composed of droplets which defy gravitation. For quite a while, that cloud will hold those droplets of water, DEFYING ATTRACTIVE GRAVITY, that is what are talking about here.

Let us take a look at the weight of some clouds.

Clouds can have a height ranging from 50 meters to over 5 km, and a length ranging from 100 meters to 1000 km; a cumulus cloud, 1 kilometer in diameter, will weigh 5 MILLION TONS, or about the weight of 1 million cars. A cumulonimbus cloud, 5 kilometers in height, and having a diameter of 15 kilometers, will actually weigh 1 BILLION TONS.


Clouds and mist DO defy attractive gravity...


Obviously, you have never thought about these things...you have just accepted everything, just as you accept the round earth nonsense.


ntheleast...do not try such nonsense, here with me...those inhabitants of the Gobi desert saw both the trajectory AND the explosion itself from some 2000 km distance...we have then a 275 km visual obstacle...

I have already given you the precise observation about the trajectory itself (which, by the way, proves it could not have been either a comet or a meteorite):

T.R. LeMaire, a science writer, continues this thought, by suggesting "The Tunguska blast's timing seems too fortuitous for an accident" (LeMaire 1980). He claims that a five-hour delay would make the target of destruction St. Petersburg, adding that a tiny change of course in space would have devastated populated areas of China or India.

Can we assume that the 'pilot' chose a cloudless day with excellent visibility from aloft to assure a safe drop? American Military strategy called for identical weather conditions; for a perfect strike on Hiroshima's industrial heart, the Enola Gay's bombardier was forbidden to release through a cloud cover: he had to see the target below. To maximize blast destruction, minimize radiation perils: the bomb was set to explode at a high altitude rather than against the ground. Similarly, the Siberian missile detonated high in the air, reducing or even eliminating fallout hazard (LeMaire 1980).

LeMaire maintains the "accident-explanation is untenable" because "the flaming object was being expertly navigated" using Lake Baikal as a reference point. Indeed, Lake Baikal is an ideal aerial navigation reference point being 400 miles long and about 35 miles wide. LeMaire's description of the course of the Tunguska object lends credence to the thought of expert navigation:

The body approached from the south, but when about 140 miles from the explosion point, while over Kezhma, it abruptly changed course to the east. Two hundred and fifty miles later, while above Preobrazhenka, it reversed its heading toward the west. It exploded above the taiga at 60º55' N, 101º57' E (LeMaire 1980).


The trajectory changed course several times...that is what the people from Irkutsk and Gobi saw very clearly...and Gobi is a very large desert...that is why I provided the 2000 m altitude for our calculations, even though the highest altitude there is around 1500 m...

And now even more proofs about the Tunguska explosion.
http://www.halexandria.org/dward232.htm

Herdsman in the Gobi desert to the south described a fireball streaking across the sky along a flight path (based on a later reconstruction) at about 10o, just slightly east of true north.  Along this direction, the object approached Keshma from the south.  Then the object was observed by others moving very nearly due east toward Preobrazhenka.  This was followed by the object moving slightly north of due west toward Vanavara.  The explosion itself was oval shaped, suggesting a prior motion in the westerly direction.     


The Gobi desert is over 2000 km away from Tunguska...the explosion was seen again clearly...no refraction/reflection...the facts are very clear...       


Let us calculate the precise numbers.

Elevation of the Gobi desert: 900 - 1500 meters; to satisfy the RE requirements, we will ascend to 2000 meters.

Distance to Tunguska, over 2000 km...

Then the visual obstacle will measure: 275 KILOMETERS (two hundred and seventy-five kilometers).


The precise trajectory and explosion seen all the way from the Gobi desert, despite a 275 km visual obstacle (on a spherical earth)...it is over for the round earth theory...
Title: Re: Photographic Evidence of Curvature Beyond the Visible Horizon
Post by: NTheGreat on October 03, 2011, 05:29:56 AM
You need to work on refining your posts. Pages and pages of text don't work in your favor when trying to make a point.

Stuff about how clouds should instantly plummet and the atmosphere should separate into layers.
Not believing in mixtures and aerosols is all fine and good, but I'm not sure how it acts as evidence for a flat Earth, as things should settle just as much in a flat Earth model as in a round Earth model. The fact that clouds do not appear to fall from the sky should be a good indication that your hypothesis that clouds should fall from the sky is wrong.

Quote
Herdsman in the Gobi desert to the south described a fireball streaking across the sky along a flight path (based on a later reconstruction) at about 10o, just slightly east of true north.  Along this direction, the object approached Keshma from the south.  Then the object was observed by others moving very nearly due east toward Preobrazhenka.  This was followed by the object moving slightly north of due west toward Vanavara.  The explosion itself was oval shaped, suggesting a prior motion in the westerly direction.     
If you head up from the Gobi desert on a heading of around 10 degrees, you'll find you don't intersect the Tunguska area at all.
Title: Re: Photographic Evidence of Curvature Beyond the Visible Horizon
Post by: pitdroidtech on October 03, 2011, 07:02:54 AM
Levee, I refuse to debate this with you any further.  Apart from growing tired of your condescending attitude, I find your continual cut and pasting of the same information to be a trifle boring.  You keep telling me to provide formulas, then when I show how the refractive index of an inversion later is calculated, you completely ignore the information and tell me yet again that I haven't shown the formula.  Yet the formula's you quoted explicitly state that they do not allow for temperature inversion!  So you have not shown any calculations yourself.

It's obviously quite pointless having any kind of debate with you.  You believe what you want to believe in the face of any reasonable evidence to the contrary, and ignore the facts when it suits you.

Title: Re: Photographic Evidence of Curvature Beyond the Visible Horizon
Post by: Son of Orospu on October 03, 2011, 07:33:44 AM
Levee, I refuse to debate this with you any further.  Apart from growing tired of your condescending attitude, I find your continual cut and pasting of the same information to be a trifle boring.  You keep telling me to provide formulas, then when I show how the refractive index of an inversion later is calculated, you completely ignore the information and tell me yet again that I haven't shown the formula.  Yet the formula's you quoted explicitly state that they do not allow for temperature inversion!  So you have not shown any calculations yourself.

It's obviously quite pointless having any kind of debate with you.  You believe what you want to believe in the face of any reasonable evidence to the contrary, and ignore the facts when it suits you.

So, the FE'rs have gotten under you skin.  +1 for the FET.  Next subject, please.

Really, don't get frustrated about the fact that they ask for proof, you give it to them, and then they run in circles telling you that you should believe your own eyes or that your proof is wrong/lie or that it is part of the conspiracy.  This is their M.O.  They will demand proof from you, and then try to debunk every bit of evidence that you present.
Title: Re: Photographic Evidence of Curvature Beyond the Visible Horizon
Post by: pitdroidtech on October 03, 2011, 08:52:18 AM
Levee, I refuse to debate this with you any further.  Apart from growing tired of your condescending attitude, I find your continual cut and pasting of the same information to be a trifle boring.  You keep telling me to provide formulas, then when I show how the refractive index of an inversion later is calculated, you completely ignore the information and tell me yet again that I haven't shown the formula.  Yet the formula's you quoted explicitly state that they do not allow for temperature inversion!  So you have not shown any calculations yourself.

It's obviously quite pointless having any kind of debate with you.  You believe what you want to believe in the face of any reasonable evidence to the contrary, and ignore the facts when it suits you.

So, the FE'rs have gotten under you skin.  +1 for the FET.  Next subject, please.

Really, don't get frustrated about the fact that they ask for proof, you give it to them, and then they run in circles telling you that you should believe your own eyes or that your proof is wrong/lie or that it is part of the conspiracy.  This is their M.O.  They will demand proof from you, and then try to debunk every bit of evidence that you present.
No you are wrong.  FET have not got under my skin and it is most assuredly not a win to FET.  Levee is unique even amongst FETists.  It is quite specifically Levee who get's under my skin.  I am quite happy to continue arguing with other FET supporters.  You can see I have had a long running and quite reasonable discussions with Ski for example or even Tom (believe it or not).

Levee on the other hand is the only one who cut and pastes pagefuls of THE SAME MATERIAL again and again without making any effort to respond to legitimate questions.  If I thought Levee and I could have a legitimate to and fro intellectual discussion I would continue to discuss it with him, but he has shown again and again a complete inability to grasp scientific concepts and simply cut and pastes reams of information from sources that he doesn't really understand.  It's pointless arguing with him and I will do so no longer.

If any other FE'er comes along and wants to discuss points with me I will do so gladly.

BTW, this is my thread, I am the OP, and I am fed up with Levee continually pulling the thread off topic.  The Topic is " Photographic Evidence of Curvature Beyond the Visible Horizon".  The emphasis is on "Photographic".  Discussions about meteors, comets, tunguska, gravity etc are not on topic.  Discussion about refractive index of inversion layers certainly are relevant to the topic, given the affect of refraction on visibility of objects on the horizon in photographs, but I have provided a link to the workings regarding refractive index of an inversion layer running parallel to the earth, and Levee has not responded to this.  Infact he has categorically refused to acknowledge it at all.  Therefore I consider his ongoing input to this thread irrelavant and it will be ignored by me. 

Title: Re: Photographic Evidence of Curvature Beyond the Visible Horizon
Post by: 29silhouette on October 03, 2011, 12:14:24 PM
I couldn't help it, so I did my own photographic experiment across the surface of a body of water with different magnifications and different elevations.  I still need to do some comparisons between them, determine where the actualy water line should be in the refraction across the surface in the low elevation photos, and research again what the curvature height should be across a distance of one mile. 

I took several pictures, but my 'setup' isn't ideal, so some pictures are better than others.  I'm still sorting them.

I'm thinking about getting another set of the low elevation pictures now that the temperature has dropped over the last couple days to see if there's a difference. 

* 8 inches per mile.  I'm using a large rock as my target, but the opposite bank works too and is a bit further.  I'm going to move over a bit which will put me parrallel to the opposite bank and it's foilage, instead of it being a little closer and angled toward me at my current spot.
Title: Re: Photographic Evidence of Curvature Beyond the Visible Horizon
Post by: pitdroidtech on October 03, 2011, 04:37:17 PM
I couldn't help it, so I did my own photographic experiment across the surface of a body of water with different magnifications and different elevations.  I still need to do some comparisons between them, determine where the actualy water line should be in the refraction across the surface in the low elevation photos, and research again what the curvature height should be across a distance of one mile. 

I took several pictures, but my 'setup' isn't ideal, so some pictures are better than others.  I'm still sorting them.

I'm thinking about getting another set of the low elevation pictures now that the temperature has dropped over the last couple days to see if there's a difference. 

* 8 inches per mile.  I'm using a large rock as my target, but the opposite bank works too and is a bit further.  I'm going to move over a bit which will put me parrallel to the opposite bank and it's foilage, instead of it being a little closer and angled toward me at my current spot.
That means from a height of 8 inches, the horizon is 1 mile distant. 

Good luck with your experiment.  I look forward to seeing your results.
Title: Re: Photographic Evidence of Curvature Beyond the Visible Horizon
Post by: Nolhekh on October 03, 2011, 06:15:03 PM
The relationship between altitude and distance to the horizon on a round earth is not linear.  The horizon will approach 1 quarter of the earth's circumference but never reach it, regardless of altitude.
Title: Re: Photographic Evidence of Curvature Beyond the Visible Horizon
Post by: 29silhouette on October 03, 2011, 08:32:52 PM
That means from a height of 8 inches, the horizon is 1 mile distant. 

Good luck with your experiment.  I look forward to seeing your results.
8 inches height equals 1 mile distant, right.  Looked it up really quick earlier as I was getting ready to head out, misread it and posted.  Too much on my mind.

I'm going to get another set and see if I can get a little lower.  The refraction across the surface will be a problem though, and I'm not sure if I'll really be able to tell anything or not because of the scale I'm working with.

Distance- .67 mile to rock, .75 to opposite shore.
elevation- about 3.5 inches (center of scope), 15 inches, 20 feet, and 35 feet (these are rough estimates, I'll use a tape measure next time too)
scope- 15-60x 60mm

The water is almost like glass when there is no wind.  Maybe some faint ripples out in the middle.  It's a gravel pit pond.

I'd head out to the rock in my kayak and use some white tape at water level and mark every 6 inches upwards for about 3 feet.  That might help.
Title: Re: Photographic Evidence of Curvature Beyond the Visible Horizon
Post by: sandokhan on October 04, 2011, 01:42:23 AM
You keep telling me to provide formulas, then when I show how the refractive index of an inversion later is calculated, you completely ignore the information and tell me yet again that I haven't shown the formula.

Your effort is greatly appreciated...but, you only posted a formula for the determination of the ray curvature...and you know very well what we need here, don't you? As usual, I have to do the research for the RE...

HERE IS THE ONLINE CALCULATION OF THE LOOMING/THERMAL INVERSION EFFECTS ON CURVATURE:

http://mintaka.sdsu.edu/GF/explain/atmos_refr/altitudes.html

We need to specify the following: temperature/height at the place of observation, temperature/height of the visual target, distance, and most important of all the STANDARD OR ARBITRARY LAPSE RATE (an arbitrary lapse rate corresponds to taking into account the looming/thermal inversion effects).

How to compute the arbitrary lapse rate is described in the paragraphs preceding the formula, and also here (you missed these things, didn't you?):

http://mintaka.sdsu.edu/GF/explain/atmos_refr/bending.html


Let us give it a try with a distance of 50 km, temperature of 20C, observer at 2 meters, and visual target at 180 meters.

We will get a POZITIVE VALUE for the angle in question, that is, the visual target can be seen/observed.

Let us now change the height of the visual target to 20 meters, something we know that it could not be seen on a round earth. Also, we will use an arbitrary lapse rate.

We will get a NEGATIVE VALUE for the angle, that is, the visual target could not be seen.


For Lake Michigan, we will use multiple sets of numbers, to satisfy the requirements of the RE. Temperatures at Holland of 5, 10, 20C (remember, it was Memorial Day 2003, we could expect some 10-15C there), and at Milwaukee/Racine of 5, 10, 20C; height of the resident at some 20 meters (and I am being very generous here; actually we could take some 5-10 meters, but I will look the other way), height of visual target: first 40 meters, then 183 meters.

We will use, of course, ONLY AN ARBITRARY LAPSE RATE, to take into account the full LOOMING/THERMAL INVERSION/DUCT FORMATION EFFECTS.


NO MATTER HOW THE FORMULA IS USED WE GET A NEGATIVE VALUE/ANSWER: that is, the visual target CANNOT BE SEEN.

This was to be expected of course...as I have clearly described the facts.

The final word and conclusion: there is no curvature over Lake Michigan, across a distance of 128 km.



Not believing in mixtures and aerosols is all fine and good, but I'm not sure how it acts as evidence for a flat Earth, as things should settle just as much in a flat Earth model as in a round Earth model. The fact that clouds do not appear to fall from the sky should be a good indication that your hypothesis that clouds should fall from the sky is wrong.

The fact that clouds do not fall from the sky points clearly to another explanation of gravity.

Again, for you...

DEFINITION OF A CLOUD:

A CLOUD IS A VISIBLE MASS OF DROPLETS. The small droplets of water WHICH DO MAKE UP A CLOUD, will have 0.01 mm in diameter.
The tiny particles of water are very densely packed, and may even combine to form larger water molecules, which ARE denser than the surrounding air.

IT IS RIGHT AT THIS POINT, WHERE WE ADDRESS THE ISSUE YOU DODGED: Water, though eight hundred times heavier than air, is held in droplets, by the millions of tons, miles above the ground. Clouds and mist are composed of droplets which defy gravitation. For quite a while, that cloud will hold those droplets of water, DEFYING ATTRACTIVE GRAVITY, that is what are talking about here.

Let us take a look at the weight of some clouds.

Clouds can have a height ranging from 50 meters to over 5 km, and a length ranging from 100 meters to 1000 km; a cumulus cloud, 1 kilometer in diameter, will weigh 5 MILLION TONS, or about the weight of 1 million cars. A cumulonimbus cloud, 5 kilometers in height, and having a diameter of 15 kilometers, will actually weigh 1 BILLION TONS.


Each droplet of water in the clouds defies attractive gravity, can you understand this?


The gases in the atmosphere DO NOT obey an attractive gravity law. The barometric pressure paradox shows that gravity could not possibly be attractive.


If you head up from the Gobi desert on a heading of around 10 degrees, you'll find you don't intersect the Tunguska area at all.

We would have to know first, FROM WHERE, what place, the observation was actually made. Then, and only then, we could comment on the intersection with Tunguska.

Please read again.

Herdsman in the Gobi desert to the south described a fireball streaking across the sky along a flight path (based on a later reconstruction) at about 10o, just slightly east of true north.

We would have to know the exact location of those hersman to make any comments on the intersection, but...

Along this direction, the object approached Keshma from the south.  Then the object was observed by others moving very nearly due east toward Preobrazhenka.

Therefore, the ball lightning changed path several times before approaching Tunguska, as I have indicated from the very beginning.

This was followed by the object moving slightly north of due west toward Vanavara.  The explosion itself was oval shaped, suggesting a prior motion in the westerly direction.     


The inhabitants of the Gobi desert described clearly not only the erratic path of the object, but also the shape of the explosion.

The facts are very clear even for a stubborn RE supporter; the visual obstacle measures some 275 km, no way the object could have been seen from some 2000 km distance. Please wake up.


Perhaps, Nelgrande, you would like then to watch these videos:

(photograph pasted to look like the Earth in space, fake Apollo 11 mission)

(Apollo 16, astronauts suspended from cables)

You like to be treated like a chump, by Nasa?

And here is how the Moon became spherical:

http://web.archive.org/web/20090126060440/http://geocities.com/apolloreality/


You will not believe a very clear description of the fact that the explosion from Tunguska was seen both from the Gobi desert and from Irkutsk, but you will believe that the fake Apollo missions (please watch the videos to convince yourself) did actually take place...

Title: Re: Photographic Evidence of Curvature Beyond the Visible Horizon
Post by: pitdroidtech on October 04, 2011, 05:15:24 AM
For Lake Michigan, we will use multiple sets of numbers, to satisfy the requirements of the RE. Temperatures at Holland of 5, 10, 20C (remember, it was Memorial Day 2003, we could expect some 10-15C there), and at Milwaukee/Racine of 5, 10, 20C; height of the resident at some 20 meters (and I am being very generous here; actually we could take some 5-10 meters, but I will look the other way), height of visual target: first 40 meters, then 183 meters.

We will use, of course, ONLY AN ARBITRARY LAPSE RATE, to take into account the full LOOMING/THERMAL INVERSION/DUCT FORMATION EFFECTS.

NO MATTER HOW THE FORMULA IS USED WE GET A NEGATIVE VALUE/ANSWER: that is, the visual target CANNOT BE SEEN.

This was to be expected of course...as I have clearly described the facts.

The final word and conclusion: there is no curvature over Lake Michigan, across a distance of 128 km.
I'll humour you.  Let's look at the equations:

Quote
Please enter the temperature and height at the Observer:
Temp. :   5  °C       Height :     2    meters
and the temperature and height at the Target:
Temp. :    23  °C     Height :     183     meters

This gives a laps rate of -99.4 degrees C/km  (which is actually very close to the .11 degrees/m that the very bending page you linked to claims is the level at which a refracted ray travels parallel to the earth)

A positive lapse rate indicates the rate at which temperature falls with increasing altitude.  Therefore a NEGATIVE lapse rate indicates the rate at which temperature RISES with altitude, ie: an inversion.

So the lapse rate of -99.4 and a distance of 128km gives us a POSITIVE apparent altitude of the target:  0.015 degrees of arc

As the results of the calculation show:
Quote
These values place the target 1.84 minutes of arc, or 0.031 degrees, above the apparent sea horizon. The target is visible.

You can see that at a low height of the observer of 2m, and a large temperature differential, can result in the 183m target being visible at a distance of 128km.

Now the temperature differential is large, but keeping in mind that 1. this occurance has only been seen 12 times in 30 years, and 2. the temperature difference over a height differential of 181m is entirely plausible for a thermal inversion, the ability to see  the horizon at this distance is not proof of a flat earth.

Let's look at something lower to the ground and the temperature differential that would be needed over height (ie the strength of the inversion)

Quote
Please enter the temperature and height at the Observer:
Temp. :   6.5  °C       Height :     2    meters
and the temperature and height at the Target:
Temp. :    10.8  °C     Height :     40     meters

= -113.16 lapse rate @ 128km
=   0.51 minutes of arc  =  0.008 degrees of arc

That's a difference of 4.3 degrees over 38 metres height, not unreasonable.

BTW, we don't use an arbitrary lapse value; we use the lapse value that the formula calculates from the temperature and height differentials.  Perhaps this is where you are making your mistake?  Please show how you calculated the lapse value.

Or perhaps the mistake you have made is to assume that the temperature is constant all the way from the ground to the top of the building. If this was the case then the formula yields negative values for arc, but this only occurs if there is no inversion in effect. When the temperature for both heights is the same, the lapse rate is zero.

Here is the calculation for a ray that curves at the same rate as the surface of the earth:
Quote
To have nR  remain constant with height, n must decrease by 1 part in 6.4 × 106 for every meter of height, as R = 6400 km = 6.4 × 106 m. But the refractivity ( n − 1 ) is only about 1/3200 of n ; so the density of the air [which is proportional to ( n − 1 ), not to n] must fall by about 3200/6.4 × 106 m, or 1 part in 2000 for every meter.

Now, the decrease in density due to the decrease in pressure with height (1 part in 8000 per meter) is only 1/4 of this, so we need 3 times as much decrease from the temperature gradient, or 3 parts in 8000 per meter. That means the temperature must increase by 3 parts in 8000 of the 300 K, or about 900/8000 of a degree = 0.11° per meter. So a temperature inversion (i.e., increasing upward instead of the usual decrease) of about 0.11°/m will produce a circulating beam or ray.

Let's plug .11 degrees per metre (ie 110 degrees per km) into the formula, with height 2m of observer and height 183m of target:

If the observer temperature at 2m is 5 degrees, then the target temperature at 183m is 25 degrees. Again, not common, but not unheard of for an inversion; completely within bounds. 

If we plug 110 degree C per 1km and respective heights of 2m and 40m, we get a temperature differential of 4.18 degrees. 

If the warm air layer is being heated by the sun, and the cold air layer is being kept cold by water currents for example, then the difference in temperature between the warm air layer and the cold air layer can become extreme enough to cause the observed results.

Quote
Normally, air temperature decreases at a rate of 3.5°F for every 1000 feet (or roughly 6.4°C for every kilometer) you climb into the atmosphere. When this normal cycle is present, it is considered an unstable air mass and air constantly flows between the warm and cool areas. As such the air is better able to mix and spread around pollutants.
During an inversion episode, temperatures increase with increasing altitude. The warm inversion layer then acts as a cap and stops atmospheric mixing. This is why inversion layers are called stable air masses.

Temperature inversions are a result of other weather conditions in an area. They occur most often when a warm, less dense air mass moves over a dense, cold air mass. This can happen for example, when the air near the ground rapidly loses its heat on a clear night. In this situation, the ground becomes cooled quickly while the air above it retains the heat the ground was holding during the day. Additionally, temperature inversions occur in some coastal areas because upwelling of cold water can decrease surface air temperature and the cold air mass stays under warmer ones.
http://geography.about.com/od/climate/a/inversionlayer.htm
Title: Re: Photographic Evidence of Curvature Beyond the Visible Horizon
Post by: NTheGreat on October 04, 2011, 05:53:56 AM
The fact that clouds do not fall from the sky points clearly to another explanation of gravity.

Intelligent falling, perhaps?

You're not really providing anything to explain why things can't mix. Why should gases fight Brownian motion and separate themselves into layers? Where's the maths to suggest the tiny differences in mass are strong enough to overcome all the other forces fighting to mix the gases up and keep the clouds in the sky?

Quote
We would have to know first, FROM WHERE, what place, the observation was actually made. Then, and only then, we could comment on the intersection with Tunguska.

It doesn't matter where in the desert the observed it from. Even following the most westerly parts of the desert up on a 10 degree heading will just miss the point where the Tunguska event occurred.

To be fair, it seems silly to assume that this event is the same one that occurred over Tunguska. We would have to know first, FROM WHERE, what place, the observation was actually made. Then, and only then, we could comment on the intersection with Tunguska.

Quote
Therefore, the ball lightning changed path several times before approaching Tunguska, as I have indicated from the very beginning.

This seems to be even more evidence that the object seen in the desert was different to the one that exploded over Tunguska. Especially as your sources suggest that the object ended up 'slightly north of due west', nowhere near the direction of Tunguska.
Title: Re: Photographic Evidence of Curvature Beyond the Visible Horizon
Post by: pitdroidtech on October 04, 2011, 06:17:06 AM
@Levee, I'd love to answer your moon landing conspiracy videos, but as I said before, I'm not going to engage you on issues that are not relevant to the thread topic.  Go and post your moon stuff in the thread for it, and I will answer you there.

In the meantime, I request that you please refrain from posting off topic posts in this thread.


Title: Re: Photographic Evidence of Curvature Beyond the Visible Horizon
Post by: The Knowledge on October 04, 2011, 07:20:14 AM
I have some good photographs of clouds appearing to touch the horizon at sea as photographed from an altitude of approximately 100 feet above sea level. I will post them later. They demonstrate the same effect as seen by the OP's photos.
Title: Re: Photographic Evidence of Curvature Beyond the Visible Horizon
Post by: pitdroidtech on October 04, 2011, 07:36:50 AM
I have some good photographs of clouds appearing to touch the horizon at sea as photographed from an altitude of approximately 100 feet above sea level. I will post them later. They demonstrate the same effect as seen by the OP's photos.
Great  :)

I will get some more photos uploaded myself soon. 
Title: Re: Photographic Evidence of Curvature Beyond the Visible Horizon
Post by: sandokhan on October 05, 2011, 02:13:52 AM
You cannot have 5C in Holland, and some 23C in Milwaukee, it would be a 18C difference over a distance of 128 km. Please check the archives of the local newspapers, and the fact that the residents did mention it was WARM DAY (Memorial Day).

With some 10C in Holland, you will get a negative result.


And you will get a negative result also for 6.5 (Holland), and 10.8 (Racine), no way the County Courthouse could be seen from 128 km distance.

Therefore, the formulas are pretty clear, and will tell you that those buildings could not and would not be seen from such a great distance.

It seems strange that you are satisfied with using an 18C difference, if you just try 10C instead, the result will be negative.

IN FACT IT WAS SOME 60 DEGREES F IN MILWAUKEE, 15C, ON MEMORIAL DAY, AND NOT 23C:

http://www.jsonline.com/historicarchive/search/?searcgVt-word&searchText=2003 memorial day

And the lapse rate will be much lower...and the result, of course, negative.

I did not make any mistakes at all; I used the right formula, you used the wrong temperatures for that day.


n, you have not explained (and actually dodged the question) of the following fact: droplets of water contained in a cloud defy attractive gravity, again, can you understand this? Gases do not stay separated according to their specific weights in the atmosphere, as they should, given the existence of attractive gravity.


But it does matter where it was observed from.

Herdsman in the Gobi desert to the south described a fireball streaking across the sky along a flight path (based on a later reconstruction) at about 10o, just slightly east of true north.

Perhaps, the description is about the flight path itself, as it was seen from the Gobi desert.

The description it pretty clear; your constant denial only adds to the fact that you cannot accept that an explosion was seen from some 2000 km distance, despite a 275 km visual obstacle.

Along this direction, the object approached Keshma from the south.  Then the object was observed by others moving very nearly due east toward Preobrazhenka.

Therefore, the ball lightning changed path several times before approaching Tunguska, as I have indicated from the very beginning.

This was followed by the object moving slightly north of due west toward Vanavara.  The explosion itself was oval shaped, suggesting a prior motion in the westerly direction.     


The inhabitants of the Gobi desert described clearly not only the erratic path of the object, but also the shape of the explosion.

The facts are very clear even for a stubborn RE supporter; the visual obstacle measures some 275 km, no way the object could have been seen from some 2000 km distance. Please wake up.


The herdsmen observed even the erratic path, the explosion itself...no need to add or comment anything else.



If you do not want to accept the facts, please watch those videos again...that is the world you live in, faked Nasa missions...


Here is the report from Irkutsk itself, some 1000 km distance from Tunguska:

The first report of the explosion was in the Irkutsk paper dated July 2, 1908, published two days after the explosion:

...the peasants saw a body shining very brightly (too bright for the naked eye) with a bluish-white light.... The body was in the form of 'a pipe', i.e. cylindrical. The sky was cloudless, except that low down on the horizon, in the direction in which this glowing body was observed, a small dark cloud was noticed. It was hot and dry and when the shining body approached the ground (which was covered with forest at this point) it seemed to be pulverized, and in its place a loud crash, not like thunder, but as if from the fall of large stones or from gunfire was heard. All the buildings shook and at the same time a forked tongue of flames broke through the cloud.

All the inhabitants of the village ran out into the street in panic. The old women wept, everyone thought that the end of the world was approaching.

Pretty clear again, isn't it? No refraction/reflection...with a visual obstacle of 67,7 km, nobody could have seen anything from 1000 km distance.


“TO THE EDITOR OF THE TIMES.”
“Sir,--I should be interested in hearing whether others of your readers observed the strange light in the sky which was seen here last night by my sister and myself. I do not know when it first appeared; we saw it between 12 o’clock (midnight) and 12:15 a.m. It was in the northeast and of a bright flame-colour like the light of sunrise or sunset. The sky, for some distance above the light, which appeared to be on the horizon, was blue as in the daytime, with bands of light cloud of a pinkish colour floating across it at intervals. Only the brightest stars could be seen in any part of the sky, though it was an almost cloudless night. It was possible to read large print indoors, and the hands of the clock in my room were quite distinct. An hour later, at about 1:30 a.m., the room was quite light, as if it had been day; the light in the sky was then more dispersed and was a fainter yellow. The whole effect was that of a night in Norway at about this time of year. I am in the habit of watching the sky, and have noticed the amount of light indoors at different hours of the night several times in the last fortnight. I have never at any time seen anything the least like this in England, and it would be interesting if any one would explain the cause of so unusual a sight.
Yours faithfully,
Katharine Stephen.
Godmanchester, Huntingdon, July 1.”

Even the trajectory of the explosion itself was seen, all the way from London...given the 7463 km visual obstacle nobody could have observed anything, from the other side of a globe...


Title: Re: Photographic Evidence of Curvature Beyond the Visible Horizon
Post by: The Knowledge on October 05, 2011, 03:51:31 AM
Levee, have you considered that RM might be a better forum for you?
Title: Re: Photographic Evidence of Curvature Beyond the Visible Horizon
Post by: NTheGreat on October 05, 2011, 04:45:01 AM
n, you have not explained (and actually dodged the question) of the following fact: droplets of water contained in a cloud defy attractive gravity

So do planes. There's more at play in the Earth's atmosphere than just gravity.

Quote
More Gobi desert stuff

Why do you think the thing over the Gobi desert is the same as the one that happened at Tunguska? If I can see the lights from a plane in the sky, does that mean that all the people in the world who can see lights in the sky are looking that the same plane that I am?

Quote
Here is the report from Irkutsk itself, some 1000 km distance from Tunguska:

Just because something was published in a paper in Irkutsk doesn't mean it happened in Irkutsk.

Also, a lot of your other reports seem to suggest this thing was moving around all over the place. If it was moving around a lot, what's wrong with the idea that it passed within sight of Irkutsk before exploding over the Tunguska area?

Quote
Even the trajectory of the explosion itself was seen, all the way from London

How does anyone observe a trajectory? I can't recall any reports from London of a dotted line in the sky marking the path the object was taking...
Title: Re: Photographic Evidence of Curvature Beyond the Visible Horizon
Post by: pitdroidtech on October 05, 2011, 07:38:16 AM
You cannot have 5C in Holland, and some 23C in Milwaukee, it would be a 18C difference over a distance of 128 km. Please check the archives of the local newspapers, and the fact that the residents did mention it was WARM DAY (Memorial Day).

You really don't seem to get this do you??

The temparature at ground level could have been more or less the same all the way from Holland to Milwaukee.  It's the temperature differences AT ALTITUDE that causes the inversion.  If it was 13 degrees at both locations at 2m, but 31 degrees at 183m, and remember this is a (relatively) cool layer of air with a warmer layer of air above, heated by the sun - not inconceivable that such a temperature difference could exist.  As to reports of a warm day, what does that mean?  It's a bit open ended.  And the majority of the refraction has already occurred over the cold ocean surface where the temperature differential between air layers is more extreme.

The fact is it is uncommon to see mirages such as this.  A fact that is evident by the research conducted by MARIE HAVENGA http://www.sandhillcity.com/mirage_articles.htm So given that such mirages are uncommon, it's reasonable to propose that a temperature inversion of unusually extreme conditions existed.

No matter which way you choose to twist it Levee, without an exact record of the temperatures at all points between Holland and Milwaukee and at different altitudes on that day at the time of the mirage, it's impossible to maintain that the degree of refraction needed could not have been attained.

Quote
Captain Wm. J. Preston and his U. S. Coast Guard crew at Grand Haven harbor witnessed a strange natural phenomenon last night, when they saw clearly the lights of both Milwaukee and Racine, shining across the lake.  As far as known this is the first time that such a freak condition has prevailed here.
Grand Haven Daily Tribune   April 3, 1925

Now I ask you, if the surface of the earth is flat, then would not ANY cool clear day cause Milwaukee to be visible from Grand Haven harbor?  The answer is yes.  But yet, it's only very rarely visible.
Title: Re: Photographic Evidence of Curvature Beyond the Visible Horizon
Post by: sandokhan on October 06, 2011, 02:32:08 AM
The temperature records for Milwaukee are very clear: RANGE BETWEEN HIGH OF 60F TO A LOW OF 47F (8,3 C TO 15,5 C).

The same goes for Holland, Michigan.

With these values in mind we get:

A lapse rate of about -44C per km (way below the values for looming/thermal inversion layers).

I used 8.3C for Holland, and 15.5 for Milwaukee, and 183 meters the height of the target.

The result will be negative, of course.


To dream about impossible differences in temperature, over a distance of 128 km is pure nonsense.

There is no way a building of some 40 meters could be seen with a visual obstacle of 984 meters in front of the observer.

The highest temperature for Milwaukee was, as recorded in the data I provided, some 60F, you cannot use anything else.

As I said before, the case is closed; the only way the County Courthouse from Racine could have been seen, is if the surface of Lake Michigan is flat.

The only way those lights from Racine could have been seen (remember the date of 1925; no 40 meter buildings then in Racine) from Grand Haven, is of course, if the surface of Lake Michigan is completely flat.


On June 30, 7:15 - 7:20 am, there was sunlight all over Siberia. In London, at 0:15, of course, there was darkness, around midnight. We are told, in the official theory, that this happens because of the curvature of the Earth, which blocks the rays of light from the Sun.

Then, how could an explosion which did take place at some 7km in altitude, on a cloudless day, be seen from Irkutsk, the Gobi desert, and from London itself?

We have the glow of the trajectory, on one side of a globe, and the immediate, instant observation on the other side the same globe, from London.

At an instant, at some 7:20, newspapers can be read in London, photographs can be taken in Stockholm...therefore the intensity of the light of the explosion itself was seen, no question about it, as we have the newspaper eyewitness accounts.

The intensity decreased gradually over a period of one hour.

The visual range limit for the observation of the explosion itself is some 400 km. Period.

It was visible from Irkutsk, with a 67.5 km visual obstacle.

It was seen from London, even the trajectory itself, the glow from it, despite a 7643 km visual obstacle.


Regular changes, daily things do not evoke astonishment and do not stir the imagination of peoples.

The herdsmen of Gobi lacked the modern protection against the elements of nature, and they were much more accustomed to disturbances of weather patterns.

No other explosion took place over the sky of Asia at that time, June 30, 7:20, visible from the entire area, please give up the nonsense.

The herdsmen described even the erratic path of the object itself, and the explosion, all this despite a 275 km visual obstacle.


So do planes. There's more at play in the Earth's atmosphere than just gravity. The caliber of this statement puts you right along pitroidtech, with his immortal line: clouds are made up of vapour...no wonder you can be fooled so easily by Nasa...

Title: Re: Photographic Evidence of Curvature Beyond the Visible Horizon
Post by: NTheGreat on October 06, 2011, 05:31:46 AM
Then, how could an explosion which did take place at some 7km in altitude, on a cloudless day, be seen from Irkutsk, the Gobi desert, and from London itself?
Simple. It wasn't seen from Irkutsk because the quote you keep pointing out is from a newspaper report talking about a village north of Irkutsk. It wasn't seen from the Gobi desert because the reports from there don't place the object in the direction of Tunguska. It wasn't seen from London because nobody in London reported an explosion. They all saw a long lasting glow.

Quote
No other explosion took place over the sky of Asia at that time, June 30, 7:20, visible from the entire area, please give up the nonsense.
How do you know?

Quote
So do planes. There's more at play in the Earth's atmosphere than just gravity. The caliber of this statement puts you right along pitroidtech, with his immortal line: clouds are made up of vapour...no wonder you can be fooled so easily by Nasa...

I'm not sure I follow. What does NASA have to do with aerosols and mixtures?
Title: Re: Photographic Evidence of Curvature Beyond the Visible Horizon
Post by: pitdroidtech on October 06, 2011, 08:30:10 AM
The highest temperature for Milwaukee was, as recorded in the data I provided, some 60F, you cannot use anything else.
The temperature is recorded at ground level, not at the level of the warm layer.  If you don't believe it's possible for a warm 31 degrees C layer of air to exist above a cold air layer of 13 degrees C, then it's not possible to argue with you anymore. 

Quote
So do planes. There's more at play in the Earth's atmosphere than just gravity. The caliber of this statement puts you right along pitroidtech, with his immortal line: clouds are made up of vapour...no wonder you can be fooled so easily by Nasa...
Your insults and slings don't become you Levee...

Quote
Precipitation forms when cloud droplets (or ice particles) in clouds grow and combine to become so large that their fall speed exceeds the updraft speed in the cloud, and they then fall out of the cloud. If these large water drops or ice particles do not re-evaporate as they fall farther below the cloud, they reach the ground as precipitation.
http://www.weatherquestions.com/What_causes_precipitation.htm 
Rain in the form of droplets are held up by wind resistance, for the same reason a leaf sometimes blows on the wind.  When the updraft ceases, the water droplets fall.

But the droplets don't start as droplets, they start as water vapour.  When the clouds become saturated with water vapour, ie when they reach the dew-point, droplets form and start to fall to the ground.  If their are no updrafts, the droplets continue to fall, gathering more water molecules as they fall forming bigger rain drops.  In a similar way, but in more extreme conditions, snow and hail forms from water vapour in the air.

Clouds also consist of microscopic ice crystals and microscopic water droplets, so small they are easily blown along on the air currents.

You badly need to study up on air pressure and aerodynamics if you want to discuss this stuff sensibly.

Quote
We know that clouds are made of water vapor, what we don’t know or at least forget is the important role that condensation plays in making clouds visible. For the most part water vapor is invisible. This is proven by the fact that the air we breathe regularly has some water vapor as part of its composition. However we don’t see it since its apart of the air. Condensation is what makes water vapor visible. Basically high temperatures excite water molecules until they change from a liquid state to a gaseous one. However lower temperatures can cause enough water vapor to condense back into liquid form. This small amount stays as very small droplets that can stay suspended in the air mostly thanks to small dust particles that they attach themselves to. It is pretty much the same way you see small bits of glitter suspended in clear glue. The drops are small enough to stay trapped in the air until condensation reaches a point of no return making rain. One result of this is that light becomes reflected and refracted. This is what makes clouds visible.
http://www.universetoday.com/73198/what-are-clouds-made-of/

Quote
First, clouds are made of tiny ice crsytals and water droplets. Water evaporates from lakes, rivers, and streams, and once it gets into the atmosphere, it condenses because of the cooler temperatures, and then clouds are formed.
http://www.severe-weather-fan.com/what-are-clouds-made-of.html
Water vapour is lighter than air, and is able to make it's way up to higher altitudes where it condenses but is held aloft by wind currents until the cloud reaches reaches dew-point.

Now let me ask you a question, since I have answered so many of yours.  Even if you don't like my answers, atleast you may do me the privilege of answering this question: why if there is no gravity, does the rain then fall?  And why does it fall once it reaches the dew-point and not a lot bigger or a lot smaller?




Title: Re: Photographic Evidence of Curvature Beyond the Visible Horizon
Post by: sandokhan on October 07, 2011, 01:16:55 AM
The formula requires temperatures at the place of the observer, and at the upper layer of the visual target you mentioned.

Since the low was about 8.3C, certainly at 19:30 (viewer from Holland mentiones it was beginning to get dark), or at 20:00, we will have a temperature of about 10C (in fact I could go as high as 12, given the fact that the high was at 15.5C).

Where do you want to go from here?

Let us assume, for the sake of the discussion, that in Milwaukee at 1000 m altitude, there were 23C (of course, this would stretch the imagination, but these are the lengths to which we have to go to convince RE the earth is flat). How could we have 10C at some 183 meters in altitude, and 800 meters higher, 23C, a difference of 13 degrees?

Even with these unbelievable numbers, the lapse rate will be around -90C/km, and the result, of course, negative.

With a high of around 15.5C, there is no way that the layers at about 800-1000 m in altitude could have had more than, say, 18C.

But we used 23C in our formula.

If we use the data from 1925, then the altitude of the observer will be some 10 meters, and the same goes for the target (Racine, in 1925). Then the visual obstacle will measure some 1068 meters.

With these numbers, even if we go to 25C at the visual target, Racine, we still get a negative number.


The surface over the lake Michigan is completely flat, no question about it...


We already talked about the droplets of water contained in the clouds...

Water, though eight hundred times heavier than air, is held in droplets, by the millions of tons, miles above the ground. Clouds and mist are composed of droplets which defy gravitation. For quite a while, that cloud will hold those droplets of water, DEFYING ATTRACTIVE GRAVITY, that is what are talking about here. With no wind present, those droplets defy attractive gravitation...given the difference in weight (800 times heavier than air). The explanation accepted by science is silly, and defies the visible facts.

Nowhere is it asked why ozone does not descend of its own weight or at least why it is not mixed by the wind with other gases.

With attractive gravity, OZONE WOULD DESCEND IMMEDIATELY AS ITS SPECIFIC WEIGHT IS GREATER THAN THAT OF OXYGEN.


And you have no answers about the fact that gases do not stay separated according to specific weights, or about the barometric pressure paradox.


Gravity is the pressure of the ether, the telluric currents, discovered by Tesla, Moray, and Schauberger, to name but a few...please read about Francis Nipher's experiments with gravity...you will find the link in my messages.


The Soviet Academy Science states quite clearly: the explosion was seen from Irkutsk and from the shores of Lake Baikal, here is their map:

(http://static.icr.org/i/research/papers/sa/sa-r05a.jpg)

http://www.icr.org/research/index/researchp_sa_r05/

The inhabitants of Central Siberia saw the fall and explosion of the meteorite over an area with a radius of 600-1000 km.

Given the fact it was a cloudless day, the visual range limit is 400 km.

Nothing could be seen beyond that limit, due to curvature; the visual obstacle from Lake Baikal (435 meters in altitude) is 21.7 km. The visual obstacle from Irkutsk is 67.5 km.

No other explosion occurred at 7:15 over Asia; give up the nonsense...the fuckball is in your court, do the research and prove to us here otherwise...

The description of the trajectory, as being erratic, and of the explosion itself LEAVES NO DOUBTS, no matter how much you bicker about it.

In London, as all over Europe, at exactly 0:20, newspapers could be read without street lighting.

On June 30, 7:15 - 7:20 am, there was sunlight all over Siberia. In London, at 0:15, of course, there was darkness, around midnight. We are told, in the official theory, that this happens because of the curvature of the Earth, which blocks the rays of light from the Sun.

Then, how could an explosion which did take place at some 7km in altitude, on a cloudless day, be seen from Irkutsk, the Gobi desert, and from London itself?

We have the glow of the trajectory, on one side of a globe, and the immediate, instant observation on the other side the same globe, from London.

No glow could be seen on a round earth, given the 7463 km visual obstacle, those are the facts.
Title: Re: Photographic Evidence of Curvature Beyond the Visible Horizon
Post by: The Knowledge on October 07, 2011, 03:39:00 AM
As promised, some photos depicting clouds sinking below the horizon. These were taken at an altitude approximately 100 feet above sea level, on a day with excellent visibility, hardly any wind and waves so calm that they did not break at the crests (so you can't claim the clouds are obscured by massive waves.)
(http://i1221.photobucket.com/albums/dd465/retknowledge/horizonclouds2.jpg)
(http://i1221.photobucket.com/albums/dd465/retknowledge/horizonclouds1.jpg)
Title: Re: Photographic Evidence of Curvature Beyond the Visible Horizon
Post by: NTheGreat on October 07, 2011, 05:31:10 AM
Water, though eight hundred times heavier than air, is held in droplets, by the millions of tons, miles above the ground. Clouds and mist are composed of droplets which defy gravitation. For quite a while, that cloud will hold those droplets of water, DEFYING ATTRACTIVE GRAVITY, that is what are talking about here. With no wind present, those droplets defy attractive gravitation...given the difference in weight (800 times heavier than air). The explanation accepted by science is silly, and defies the visible facts.
What do you find silly about it? If you think there's an error in it, it would be helpful to point it out rather than just saying 'It's silly'.

Quote
With attractive gravity, OZONE WOULD DESCEND IMMEDIATELY AS ITS SPECIFIC WEIGHT IS GREATER THAN THAT OF OXYGEN.
What makes you think it will descend faster than it's being destroyed and replenished? As far as I can tell, your evidence consists of the fact you think it shouldn't work, and little else.

Quote
The Soviet Academy Science states quite clearly: the explosion was seen from Irkutsk and from the shores of Lake Baikal, here is their map:
Firstly, I suspect that the map includes the area where the object was visible, not just where the explosion could be seen from. As it likely started higher in the atmosphere than the height at which it exploded and the fact that it was apparently moving, it's not surprising that it was seen over an area slightly larger than the 400 km you keep mentioning.

Secondly, there's nothing to suggest that the explosion was seen from Irkutsk itself. You are making things up.

Quote
No other explosion occurred at 7:15 over Asia; give up the nonsense...do the research and prove to us here otherwise...
The research is already there. You have one set of reports over the Tunguska area, and you have another report of an object in a different direction to Tunguska. This suggests to me that there are two different objects.

Quote
We have the glow of the trajectory, on one side of a globe, and the immediate, instant observation on the other side the same globe, from London.
Why do you think it is a trajectory that's glowing? I through such a thing would be a line, not something spread all over the place.

It's not really an immediate, instant observation either. It was apparently going on all through the night, not just at the time the Tunguska event occurred.
Title: Re: Photographic Evidence of Curvature Beyond the Visible Horizon
Post by: pitdroidtech on October 07, 2011, 07:08:55 AM
Let us assume, for the sake of the discussion, that in Milwaukee at 1000 m altitude, there were 23C (of course, this would stretch the imagination, but these are the lengths to which we have to go to convince RE the earth is flat). How could we have 10C at some 183 meters in altitude, and 800 meters higher, 23C, a difference of 13 degrees?

No, the temp recordings for Milwawkee were not taken at the height of the visual obstacle, you are making that up.  You don't need to go to 1000m to get a temp difference.  In NORMAL conditions, yes a range of temperature difference this extreme over 183m would not occur.  But in the unusual conditions that create an inversion (btw, a measured scientific fact), such extremes of temperature can and do occur.  This is not up for debate; these are things that have been measured by meteorologists.  The various refractive index's of different densities (temperatures) of air is how these formulas we are using are derived.

What it comes down to is your belief that a temperature inversion cannot be more than some arbitrary extreme of temperature that seems logical to you.  This is unscientific.

Something else that these formulas don't take into account:  The inversion might be high, 300m or more, but if ends with a warm front, the refracted light rays won't get refracted back up to the warm air layer.  They will continue to push down into the warm air.  So in the right condtions a light beam from the shores of Milwawkee, could reflect up into the atmosphere through warm air, hit the warmer air of the inversion, then be refracted backwards and forwards between the layer boundary of the inversion until it reaches the eye of someone standing in Holland.  The formulas assume a completely stable inversion for x number of kilometres; they don't describe what happens when the end of the inversion layer is reached.

The fact is, you have no explanation for why it is only on very rare occasions that these kinds of visible phenomena occur.  You latch onto an infrequent occurance and claim it is proof Fait Accompli of something that ought to be a common occurance in order to justify your argument. 

There is no point arguing with you, since you think you know more than all the weather scientists, meteorologists and experts put together.  You refuse to accept any scientific evidence and instead rely on your own instinct that temperature inversions cannot cause looming of the degree observed at various infrequent times at different locations.

I've tried to have a reasonable educated debate with you, but it's getting nowhere.  You insist on believing your own baseless version of atmospheric conditions.  You ignore aerodynamics, air pressure, weather dynamics, thermal behaviour of gases, and various other well researched established facts in favour of your own fervent fairy tales.  There is no point in continuing this debate.  Good luck to you sir.




Title: Re: Photographic Evidence of Curvature Beyond the Visible Horizon
Post by: pitdroidtech on October 07, 2011, 07:15:09 AM
As promised, some photos depicting clouds sinking below the horizon. These were taken at an altitude approximately 100 feet above sea level, on a day with excellent visibility, hardly any wind and waves so calm that they did not break at the crests (so you can't claim the clouds are obscured by massive waves.)
Thanks, I appreciate this contribution.  I'd like to get this thread back to discussing photographic evidence.
Title: Re: Photographic Evidence of Curvature Beyond the Visible Horizon
Post by: General Disarray on October 07, 2011, 08:20:29 AM
Just report levee's posts for spam if you think he is going off topic, he was demodded for behavior like that which he is displaying here.
Title: Re: Photographic Evidence of Curvature Beyond the Visible Horizon
Post by: pitdroidtech on October 07, 2011, 08:53:42 AM
Just report levee's posts for spam if you think he is going off topic, he was demodded for behavior like that which he is displaying here.
Thanks for the suggestion, I may do that if he persists.  I'm happy to engage in debate to a point, but in this case it's detracting from the topic, and the debate seems stuck at a point on which neither of us is going to budge. It's probably best that I cease interacting with Levee on this particular point of debate and hopefully he will get the message and cease posting off-topic material.