Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Topics - 29silhouette

Pages: [1]
Flat Earth Debate / My reply to Sandokhan regarding a thread in Q&A
« on: October 11, 2017, 08:32:43 PM »
Saving the mods the trouble as it is no longer Q&A, original thread here:

Why is the observation deck of the CN tower only about halfway up?   Isn't it closer to 2/3 toward the top?

The photograph was taken right on the beach.

If you increase the altitude of the observer, then you will get this (from Niagara Falls):

Where is the sky dome?

Right next to the CN tower, you can barely make it out in the photograph even using a magnified version of the photographs.
Everything is still 'sunken in that first picture.  Why is the Sky Dome squashed?  Looks like the superior mirage/refraction.

Low altitude shots should be the same as high altitude, unless something is blocking view from lower shots.

Still not seeing the Skydome in that last shot.

Let us imagine the city of Toronto as a gigantic ship, with the CN tower as its mast.

Then, progressively, using in succession a better quality camera each time, we get these photographs: (CN Tower barely visible) (with a better camera, more details become visible) (and the rooftop of the Sky Dome very visible, completely impossible on a round earth)

Lower quality cameras cause fog?  Can you explain this?

Fog is common in many photographs taken across lake Ontario.
So is fog the result of lower quality cameras or not?

Also, the first image (CN Tower barely visible)
was shot with a $590 Panasonic dmc-fz30 8mp with 12x zoom.

The second shot (with a better camera, more details become visible)
was shot with a $340 Canon powershot S1 IS 3.2mp with 10x zoom.


Beamer's Falls #071114
River Forty Mile Creek
Class Ramp
Size Medium
Height: 45
Crest: 20
The Niagara Peninsula Conservation Authority acquired Beamer Memorial Conservation Area in 1964, to protect and preserve the Niagara Escarpment and the Forty-Mile Creek valley system. The site is home to a variety of Carolinian plants and wildlife.

Therefore, from 45 meters in altitude, we should see a huge 59 meter curvature right in front of us, and a visual obstacle of some 65 meters.

Here is the other photograph from Beamer Falls:

Again, no curvature whatsoever across a distance of 55 km, no 59 m midpoint visual obstacle.

45m is not the elevation of the area, it's most likely the height of the upper falls.  The elevation of the area the picture was taken from is about 180 meters.  The shoreline is 75 meters.  The photographer had an effective elevation above the lake of 105 meters.

From the ridge he was most likely on based on terrain, trail path, and alignment with a highway in another picture taken from the same place, the distance to the Skydome is 52km.

Technology, Science & Alt Science / Almost had to get a new computer.
« on: March 23, 2014, 11:21:00 AM »
Close one.  Started having random pink squares show up with browser open or when screensaver kicked in, and startup took forever with with "previous improper shutdown, run startup repair / start normally" selection over and over, or it would get to the desktop and do the blue-screen and then restart.

Same results with safe mode or even putting my old harddrive in and trying to run it instead.

Pulled the 2gig ram out I added shortly after buying it.  Problem went away for about 30 minutes, but came back.  Pulled the original ram out and put the other one back in.  Been working fine now for a couple days.

Yeah, got a bit worried there I was going to have to spend $300-500 on a new laptop, or whatever it would cost for a used windows 7 machine.  (an upgrade from Vista would be nice, but I'm sure how well I'd like 8 until I really try it)  Spent $350 on this thing only 5 years ago, so it better last a little longer yet damnit  >:( .

Only other computer I have hooked up to internet at the moment is an old tower with XP pro (no SP) and IE6.  I'll have to take a look at my other old tower though, not sure what SP or browser version it has.

Technology, Science & Alt Science / Supernova spotted in M82
« on: January 23, 2014, 11:57:05 PM »

Anyone take a look yet?  I finally got some clear skies tonight to test out my new spotting scope.  It's a 20-60x80, and not an expensive one at that, but I could still just barely see it.  I'll try the telescope tomorrow if it's still clear.  I'm in the middle of converting to 1.25" eyepieces and it also needs some collimating, but I'll give it a shot.

Stopped down at Puget Sound a couple weeks ago.  I was there at low-tide, but there was still only roughly 20 feet of difference between the water and the parking spot.  Behind me were railroad tracks and thick trees up the hillside, and the access road isn't lined up with the view of the bridge.

If I try this again, I'll shoot straight across the water at some other features, giving me a distance of about 5.5 miles, but allowing me to use the road (the side of course) to gain much more elevation.

So, I was hoping to duplicate Pitdroidtech's photos that he did showing ships and land disappearing behind the earth's curvature, and use varied magnifications to see if any restoration showed up at different magnifications taken from the exact same elevation after a supposed example of restoration was pointed out in his thread, but with a slight elevation change, refraction, and a minor mirage all playing havoc with the object in question.

Anyway, I realized two things:

1.  The conditions that day were ripe for everyone's favorite friend, 'refraction'.
2.  My poor-man's method of long range photography doesn't work very well at 40, 60, or higher, magnification.

These pictures were through a 15-60 variable power spotting scope, but I got the most detail with 15x.  It's pointless to post the higher power images, as they show the same thing enlarged, but with no extra detail.  Distance to the bridge (bridges, there are two actually) is 9.81 miles, and 12 miles to the hillside.

6 inches.

about 20 feet.

Sadly, I didnít really have the tower completely in the middle image, so I added it to this from a different pic, which happened to be lacking the shoreline features further to the right.  I lined up the three images starting at the top of the tower and working down after leveling them according to the shoreline.
1. top of tower
2. top of tree
3. deck surface passing through tower
4. top of inner tower cross-beam
5. water
Notice the tower base, houses, mudslides (I assume they're slides) and trees compressing.  *edit- left to right scroll problem fixed.


1x at 6 inches.

I wish I could have gotten higher yet to see how much the shoreline changed, but couldn't. 

I want a new camera and lense for long range photography, and then these little experiments will be much easier and nicer looking.

So, when Tom Bishop (was it TB?) says he saw the opposite shore 24 miles across that bay, or Rowbotham saw a sheet or whatever 5 miles away, I'm not really suprised.  They should have tried different elevations though.

Arts & Entertainment / Consolidated my old game systems.
« on: April 07, 2012, 11:48:14 PM »
So who else still plays the older stuff?

I had four systems in my living room, the the cords were a mess, so I carved out a spot in my basement, grabbed an old 27" tv I wasn't using, picked up some cords, TV stand, stereo, and table from a couple goodwill and second-hand stores.  Also just picked up the x-box and a second PS2 to use for a cheap price(I still play my original PS2 upstairs on the 46") and the Atari Flashback system.

The PS has a chip installed for my Korean bought games, therefore justifying having both the PS2 and PS.

I might just put all the CD games into binders (half of which are already there), otherwise I need to rig up more shelving if I'm going to keep them in cases (half of which are missing anyway). ::)

AV cord hotness

I'll be adding more systems, but then I also have to stock up on more games, and I'm trying not to spend too much right now.

I'm also looking at possibly getting a 36" or at least a 32" tube tv. (the NES lightgun doesn't work on new stuff  :-[ ), so anyway, who else has the older games or pictures of their setup?

Decided to re-do my sun pictures.  Here's one from 9:11am, 1pm, and 4:49pm at 46*47'39 N. 

Taking Trig's advice, I used the regular 7.2MP camera again, with the zoom maxed (3x) and through the 12x binos and the welding lense (yes, it has a green tint), but did not crop, enlarge, or layer them.  I can post the EXIF for each picture if anyone wants to see it (realized after taking pictures my camera was an hour fast).  The only difference between the three were slight variations in exposure time anyway.  The 3x zoom alone just didn't cut it.  Wasn't enough for it to focus.  I didn't use a level for horizontal leveling, and had to wait until 9am, due to a bit of fog and low clouds.  My camera just wouldn't focus on it very well.




There are three things I'd like to point out.  If anybody has any other observations, by all means let us know.

1. Looks the same size.  Been over that before, and I'm sure Tom will post his link to that site with it's explaination containing no photographic evidence.

2. Sunspots, and how they appear to rotate.  There is a prominent spot, and a fainter, smaller spot just below it (it is visible in all three images).  Throughout the day the spots appear to rotate around the sun.  This is (RET) due to the latitude I'm located on, and the angle I'm viewing the sun at in the morning shot versus the noon shot versus the evening shot (which is angled opposite from the morning) 

If it sounds complicated, you can re-create this easily in your home with a small ball and a paper with a circle and a couple spots drawn on it. 

In FET, the sun would have to be 'rolling' as it moves through the sky, and in places where the sun passes directly overhead, the sunspots would appear to move vertically across it's surface.  Correct?  Has anyone ever witnessed this?

3. Observing the sunspots again, they don't move closer to, or further away from the edge.  That would be the case if a sphere 3000 miles was passing by.  With RET, the explanation is simple.  It's about 92900000 miles away, and we see the same side of it throughout the day (even though is does slowly rotate).

In FET, as the sun passes by throughout the day, it would have to be rotating in order for the same spot to always face me.  Simple enough concept, but in order to keep the same side facing me without deviating, the rotational speed would have to vary slightly.  Rotating faster at noon than at sunrise or sunset. 

The problem with that should be obvious.

Again, this can be demonstrated with a small ball, or by keeping your face turned toward something on the side of a road as you approach it and pass by (an exaggerated example of course).

These observations of the sun will be more pronounced during the summer.

Flat Earth Debate / The re-sizing of the sun due to glare...
« on: January 28, 2012, 12:48:55 AM »
Here are a couple pictures I took of it.  I ended up using my HD digital video camera mounted on a tripod with a #10 and a #5 welding face-shield lense.  The camera has a 30x optical zoom, and it was maxed for each shot.  I got some video of the sun, and then saved a few frames as images.

The welding lenses have a green tint, but are extremely clear glass.  I'll get some neutral-colored shaded lenses eventually (I'd love one for my telescope), but these lenses happened to be readily available and free.

Taken 12:30pm (captured a sunspot again just above and left of the center)

Taken 4:45pm- I was working on my garage when I realized it was clear, and almost sunset, so I grabbed my setup and jogged over to the gravel pit, just getting a shot before it went behind the trees, which caused the camera to increase it's auto-exposure, making the sun appear brighter than the noon image.  The edge is still obvious though.  There was a tiny bit of the usual "squashing down" barely visible on the right-lower edge, and some minor clouds.

The two combined with the transparency for the 12:30 image set to '15'.  The trees actually kind of help set the images apart I guess. 

So there's two images of the sun a little over four hours apart, with the brightness reduced (and glare removed).  I don't really see any difference in size. 

I'll try it again during the summer when there's several more hours between noon and sunset (and the sun being much further away between shoots, according to FET), but I don't think it will matter. 

Flat Earth Debate / shadow of a disk during lunar eclipse & curved gravity?
« on: December 04, 2010, 11:16:24 AM »
Noticed this in the information repository forum.

"A quarter is a flat object. However, if you spin a quarter on its axis, the shadow made by a light overhead is in the shape of a circle.

Suppose that the earth is flat, as per our initial hypothesis. Now suppose that the earth is in constant motion. In fact, it is widely acknowledged that the earth is spinning at the tremendous rate of approximately 1000 miles per hour. Given these assmptions, what shape shadow should the earth cast upon the moon during a lunar eclipse? Clearly, the earth should cast a circular shadow!"

Seriously? comparing a quarter spinning on it's edge and creating a round shadow since it's spinning so fast, to the earth as a similiar shaped disk creating blurred, yet round, shadow on the moon during a lunar eclipse since the earth is also spinning fast (the "tremendous rate of 1000mph" )

It takes 24hrs for the Earth to make a revolution, not a fraction of a second like a coin.  If the Earth was flat, the moon would have to be directly overhead to get a round shadow, which means the sun would be directly below the earth.  If that was the case, then the entire surface of the Earth would be dark during a lunar eclipse.  That, or we'd have an oval shaped shadow of varying thickness, or a narrow line, but at that point there'd be so much sunlight coming around the earth I doubt there'd be a shadow at all. 

"How can we account for the equal effects of gravity if the earth is a flat disc? Gravity is a force field. Nobody really knows what gravity looks like--we only know what gravity is like through its effects: it pulls us downward. Therefore, suppose that gravity is curved. It proceeds from the center of mass of the disc-shaped earth out to the further reaches of the earth, while all the time it is curved in such a way as to pull objects on the earth downward. That would account for the observed effects of gravity."

A concentrated source of gravity at the center of a disk, that 'radiates' outward horizontaly, and then curves upward to the surface and is even over the entire surface of the disk?  I'll stick with a sphere pulling directly inward.

Or is it all bendy light and bendy gravity? 

The Lounge / New guy
« on: November 26, 2010, 12:19:45 PM »
That is all.  Nothing to see here.

Pages: [1]