"Conspiracy" is not a valid argument

  • 320 Replies
  • 41275 Views
*

Ski

  • Planar Moderator
  • 8447
  • Homines, dum docent, dispenguin.
Re: "Conspiracy" is not a valid argument
« Reply #300 on: June 25, 2008, 01:46:30 PM »
How far were you from the shore?
Amost 5 miles.  Damn this 30 second timer, I can't respond to everyone fast enough.

I'm certain five miles would not give you the effect you are trying to represent. This reinforces the fact you are seeing a perspective effect. The fact that there appears to be white caps in the image suggest any rise of the surface level would be due to something other than the earth's presumed curvature.
"Never think you can turn over any old falsehood without a terrible squirming of the horrid little population that dwells under it." -O.W. Holmes "Truth forever on the scaffold, Wrong forever on the throne.."

Re: "Conspiracy" is not a valid argument
« Reply #301 on: June 25, 2008, 02:05:17 PM »
How far were you from the shore?
Amost 5 miles.  Damn this 30 second timer, I can't respond to everyone fast enough.

I'm certain five miles would not give you the effect you are trying to represent. This reinforces the fact you are seeing a perspective effect. The fact that there appears to be white caps in the image suggest any rise of the surface level would be due to something other than the earth's presumed curvature.
You're certain are you?  Holy shit, the "bedford level" trials were conducted with 6 miles where the target should have been about 11 feet under the water level and yet magically 5 miles would do nothing?  You're full of it, no intellectual honesty whatsoever.  The "white capped" waves were only a couple inches high a piece, and not enough to completely cover up the opposite shore and ground beneath the trees.  For that matter, where's the road?  There's a dirt access road over there, and as you can see from the aerial shot, the trees shouldn't completely obscure it as there are gaps at the initial tree line that should permit a view of the road.  The water level sure isn't flooding the road and as I said, the state's in a drought right now.
« Last Edit: June 25, 2008, 02:11:19 PM by messierhunter »

*

Lord Wilmore

  • Vice President
  • Administrator
  • 12089
Re: "Conspiracy" is not a valid argument
« Reply #302 on: June 25, 2008, 02:07:28 PM »
But would you? This is all hypothetical. I live in Ireland, and frankly I can't afford to go anywhere to see your original image. Will you come here and show it to me? I'd be glad to take a look.
Next time you're at a shuttle launch look me up and I'll show you.
I don't see Ireland entering the space race anytime soon. Cue joke about going to the sun at night.

Anyway, I must be off; I have some Paul Auster to read.
"I want truth for truth's sake, not for the applaud or approval of men. I would not reject truth because it is unpopular, nor accept error because it is popular. I should rather be right and stand alone than run with the multitude and be wrong." - C.S. DeFord

*

Ski

  • Planar Moderator
  • 8447
  • Homines, dum docent, dispenguin.
Re: "Conspiracy" is not a valid argument
« Reply #303 on: June 25, 2008, 02:16:03 PM »
You're certain are you?  Holy shit, the "bedford level" trials were conducted with 6 miles where the target should have been about 11 feet under the water level and yet magically 5 miles would do nothing?  You're full of it, no intellectual honesty whatsoever.  The "white capped" waves were only a couple inches high a piece, and not enough to completely cover up the opposite shore and ground beneath the trees.  For that matter, where's the road?  There's a dirt access road over there, and as you can see from the aerial shot, the trees shouldn't completely obscure it as there are gaps at the initial tree line that should permit a view of the road.  The water level sure isn't flooding the road and as I said, the state's in a drought right now.

I assume the road is elevated off the shore line. I see nothing wrong with my assumption. White caps don't break at a couple inches high. Again the perspective effect is distorting the relative height of the waves and the shoreline.
"Never think you can turn over any old falsehood without a terrible squirming of the horrid little population that dwells under it." -O.W. Holmes "Truth forever on the scaffold, Wrong forever on the throne.."

Re: "Conspiracy" is not a valid argument
« Reply #304 on: June 25, 2008, 02:17:43 PM »
You're certain are you?  Holy shit, the "bedford level" trials were conducted with 6 miles where the target should have been about 11 feet under the water level and yet magically 5 miles would do nothing?  You're full of it, no intellectual honesty whatsoever.  The "white capped" waves were only a couple inches high a piece, and not enough to completely cover up the opposite shore and ground beneath the trees.  For that matter, where's the road?  There's a dirt access road over there, and as you can see from the aerial shot, the trees shouldn't completely obscure it as there are gaps at the initial tree line that should permit a view of the road.  The water level sure isn't flooding the road and as I said, the state's in a drought right now.

I assume the road is elevated off the shore line. I see nothing wrong with my assumption. White caps don't break at a couple inches high. Again the perspective effect is distorting the relative height of the waves and the shoreline.
White caps don't break higher than the road and I sure as hell don't see white caps filling the entire line where the road should be.

*

Ski

  • Planar Moderator
  • 8447
  • Homines, dum docent, dispenguin.
Re: "Conspiracy" is not a valid argument
« Reply #305 on: June 25, 2008, 02:28:30 PM »
They don't have to break higher than the road. They just have to be nearer to you. To use an extreme example my thumb is not higher than the treeline five miles away from me, but my thumb easily eclipses my view of the tree at arms length.
"Never think you can turn over any old falsehood without a terrible squirming of the horrid little population that dwells under it." -O.W. Holmes "Truth forever on the scaffold, Wrong forever on the throne.."

Re: "Conspiracy" is not a valid argument
« Reply #306 on: June 25, 2008, 02:30:29 PM »
They don't have to break higher than the road. They just have to be nearer to you. To use an extreme example my thumb is not higher than the treeline five miles away from me, but my thumb easily eclipses my view of the tree at arms length.
In your example you're raising your thumb to the horizon to cover the tree.  The closer crests are not at the horizon, not even close, and they are not nearly large enough to reach up to the horizon.

*

Ski

  • Planar Moderator
  • 8447
  • Homines, dum docent, dispenguin.
Re: "Conspiracy" is not a valid argument
« Reply #307 on: June 25, 2008, 02:33:49 PM »
Are you obviously missing the point?
"Never think you can turn over any old falsehood without a terrible squirming of the horrid little population that dwells under it." -O.W. Holmes "Truth forever on the scaffold, Wrong forever on the throne.."

?

jdoe

  • 388
Re: "Conspiracy" is not a valid argument
« Reply #308 on: June 25, 2008, 02:42:41 PM »
A question messierhunter,

What was your approximate height above the water when making this observation?

I think I'll make a diagram and that should clear things up.
Mars or Bust

Re: "Conspiracy" is not a valid argument
« Reply #309 on: June 25, 2008, 02:43:23 PM »
Are you obviously missing the point?
No, but you are.  If earth is flat we should see the road right underneath those trees.  What's blocking the road isn't just a non-ending series of "white caps," it's the whole river, so therefore we can conclude that the earth is not flat.

Re: "Conspiracy" is not a valid argument
« Reply #310 on: June 25, 2008, 02:45:23 PM »
A question messierhunter,

What was your approximate height above the water when making this observation?

I think I'll make a diagram and that should clear things up.
About 6 feet.

Re: "Conspiracy" is not a valid argument
« Reply #311 on: June 25, 2008, 03:04:15 PM »
A question messierhunter,

What was your approximate height above the water when making this observation?

I think I'll make a diagram and that should clear things up.
About 6 feet.

At least now we know how tall you are. I had been curious. lol

?

jdoe

  • 388
Re: "Conspiracy" is not a valid argument
« Reply #312 on: June 25, 2008, 04:05:28 PM »
Well, here's a crude diagram, but at least it illustrates the principle.  Let me know if I have misrepresented anything.

Mars or Bust

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 38039
Re: "Conspiracy" is not a valid argument
« Reply #313 on: June 25, 2008, 04:10:53 PM »
For that you needed to know how tall he is?   ???   :P
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

?

jdoe

  • 388
Re: "Conspiracy" is not a valid argument
« Reply #314 on: June 25, 2008, 04:15:02 PM »
For that you needed to know how tall he is?   ???   :P

Hey, don't mock my MS Paint skills!   :P
Mars or Bust

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 38039
Re: "Conspiracy" is not a valid argument
« Reply #315 on: June 25, 2008, 04:34:14 PM »
For that you needed to know how tall he is?   ???   :P

Hey, don't mock my MS Paint skills!   :P

It's what I do.   8)
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

*

Ski

  • Planar Moderator
  • 8447
  • Homines, dum docent, dispenguin.
Re: "Conspiracy" is not a valid argument
« Reply #316 on: June 26, 2008, 07:36:54 AM »
It'd be nice to draw it to full scale to demonstrate the effect of even small waves blocking the horizon, but I have no such skill at rendering.
"Never think you can turn over any old falsehood without a terrible squirming of the horrid little population that dwells under it." -O.W. Holmes "Truth forever on the scaffold, Wrong forever on the throne.."

?

jdoe

  • 388
Re: "Conspiracy" is not a valid argument
« Reply #317 on: June 26, 2008, 08:51:14 AM »
It'd be nice to draw it to full scale to demonstrate the effect of even small waves blocking the horizon, but I have no such skill at rendering.

It would be near impossible to get the picture to scale.  The angles would be imperceptible.

I'm not sure how much small waves would effect the view on a flat earth.  In order to block the road, the waves have to rise above the line which connects the telescope to the opposite shoreline.  This line has a slope of 6/(5*5280)=1/4400.  So I guess a modest wave of a half a foot or so could potentially block the road if it was located somewhere within 2200 feet from the shore.  But, then again we don't know how high the road is above the water, or how high those trees are.

For the round earth prediction, I'll use an Earth radius of 3960 miles.  5 miles subtends 1/792 radians.  To calculate angle between the observer and where a line of sight meets the water at a point of tangency, I'll take arcos((3960/(3960+6/5280)) = 1/1320 radians.  I'll subtract this from the total angle subtended to obtain 1/792-1/1320 = 1/1980 radians.  I'll now take the cosine of this, divide the Earth's radius by it, and subtract an Earth's radius to obtain the total height blocked by the curvature of the earth, 3980/cos(1/1980) - 3960 =.00050505 miles = 2.667 feet = 32 inches.

So according to RE, anything within 32 inches above water on the opposite shore will be blocked from view.  That's not much at all.  I don't think its enough to block the road by itself, let alone the trees too.

Clearly, there is something else at play here.  It could be waves.  It could be refraction.  But honestly, as much as I hate to say it, I don't think this evidence supports either model.  In addition, this shows the subtleties involved with such measurements of the Earth on these scales and perhaps how unreliable they can be.
« Last Edit: June 26, 2008, 09:10:38 AM by jdoe »
Mars or Bust

Re: "Conspiracy" is not a valid argument
« Reply #318 on: June 26, 2008, 08:57:35 AM »
It'd be nice to draw it to full scale to demonstrate the effect of even small waves blocking the horizon, but I have no such skill at rendering.
Considering the closest small waves were well below the angle to the road, there is no need for a "full scale" drawing to demonstrate what was just clearly demonstrated.

Re: "Conspiracy" is not a valid argument
« Reply #319 on: June 26, 2008, 09:07:35 AM »

So according to RE, anything 32 inches above water on the opposite shore will be blocked from view.  That's not much at all.  I don't think its enough to block the road by itself, let alone the trees too.
Sounds about right to me, little less than 3 feet.  Dirt access roads like the one here aren't usually that high above the water level, and certainly the shore is not.  Here's an example from one of the roads on a main island next to the one I was shooting towards:

?

Wordsmith

  • 175
  • The Immoveable Stone in your World of Weak
Re: "Conspiracy" is not a valid argument
« Reply #320 on: June 27, 2008, 03:19:33 PM »
How far were you from the shore?
Amost 5 miles.  Damn this 30 second timer, I can't respond to everyone fast enough.

I'm certain five miles would not give you the effect you are trying to represent. This reinforces the fact you are seeing a perspective effect. The fact that there appears to be white caps in the image suggest any rise of the surface level would be due to something other than the earth's presumed curvature.

such as?
You either completely misunderstand the relevant points because you are unfamiliar with them, or you choose to manipulate your interpretation to continue to deceive others