100 mile view from sea-level

First, why is this constrained to CN? Second, wasn't the point of this thread that it is possible to see over 100 miles at sea level, thus showing that the horizon can't be caused by atmospheric opacy?

First, why is this constrained to CN? Second, wasn't the point of this thread that it is possible to see over 100 miles at sea level, thus showing that the horizon can't be caused by atmospheric opacy?

I screwed it up.  Someone post porn in here and I moved it to a secret forum so that people could not see it.  I meant to move the rest back after taking out the porn, but then realized that I could not.  Anyway, it has been fixed. 

Sorry.

Quote from: Alex Tomasovich on July 30, 2013, 07:37:05 AM

First, why is this constrained to CN? Second, wasn't the point of this thread that it is possible to see over 100 miles at sea level, thus showing that the horizon can't be caused by atmospheric opacy?

I screwed it up.  Someone post porn in here and I moved it to a secret forum so that only I could see it.  I meant to move the rest back after taking out the porn, but then realized that I could not.  Anyway, it has been fixed. 

Sorry.

Fixed that for you.

Quote from: jroa on July 30, 2013, 07:48:07 AM

Quote from: Alex Tomasovich on July 30, 2013, 07:37:05 AM

First, why is this constrained to CN? Second, wasn't the point of this thread that it is possible to see over 100 miles at sea level, thus showing that the horizon can't be caused by atmospheric opacy?

I screwed it up.  Someone post porn in here and I moved it to a secret forum so that only I could see it.  I meant to move the rest back after taking out the porn, but then realized that I could not.  Anyway, it has been fixed. 

Sorry.

Fixed that for you.

Rama, this is in FEG now.  What did I tell you about low content posts in the upper fora?  One more and you will get an unpaid vacation.   

Quote from: Rama Set on July 30, 2013, 07:49:07 AM

Quote from: jroa on July 30, 2013, 07:48:07 AM

Quote from: Alex Tomasovich on July 30, 2013, 07:37:05 AM

First, why is this constrained to CN? Second, wasn't the point of this thread that it is possible to see over 100 miles at sea level, thus showing that the horizon can't be caused by atmospheric opacy?

I screwed it up.  Someone post porn in here and I moved it to a secret forum so that only I could see it.  I meant to move the rest back after taking out the porn, but then realized that I could not.  Anyway, it has been fixed. 

Sorry.

Fixed that for you.

Rama, this is in FEG now.  What did I tell you about low content posts in the upper fora?  One more and you will get an unpaid vacation.   

Sorry mate.  Just wanted to inject a little humor.

Quote from: jroa on July 30, 2013, 07:51:32 AM

Quote from: Rama Set on July 30, 2013, 07:49:07 AM

Quote from: jroa on July 30, 2013, 07:48:07 AM

Quote from: Alex Tomasovich on July 30, 2013, 07:37:05 AM

First, why is this constrained to CN? Second, wasn't the point of this thread that it is possible to see over 100 miles at sea level, thus showing that the horizon can't be caused by atmospheric opacy?

I screwed it up.  Someone post porn in here and I moved it to a secret forum so that only I could see it.  I meant to move the rest back after taking out the porn, but then realized that I could not.  Anyway, it has been fixed. 

Sorry.

Fixed that for you.

Rama, this is in FEG now.  What did I tell you about low content posts in the upper fora?  One more and you will get an unpaid vacation.   

Sorry mate.  Just wanted to inject a little humor.

No sweat.  Just realize which fora you are posting in and post appropriately. 

3 for comparison. First two are squatting down on the beach. The little islands are on top of the horizon, whereas in the last picture there is water visible behind the little islands.  The last one was out on some high rocks so yes 15 feet is a good estimate.

Silhouette 29, did you ever use the coordinates I gave you and look at Google Earth?

nice photos
unfortunately, someone might argue against this by bringing up light refraction.
link:http://mintaka.sdsu.edu/GF/explain/atmos_refr/horizon.html

i think there is no conclusive way of proving flat or round sitting on earth. there is such small amount of curvature per mile if assuming earth is round, and any measuring tools (plum bob, rulers, lasers, etc most likely will be warped over such long distances whether by refraction or the measuring stick or line being bent, blown, etc)..

This shows that if FET was true all you would need to see midnight sun at the equator is good visibility conditions. At the equator in the equinox at midnight, sunlight would only have to travel through the equivalent of 20-25 kilometres of sea level air.

What this actually shows is lensing due to differences in density between layers of air that happen to be stratified over the water (anyone else notice this always seems to happen on calm days?).

It complies very nicely with Snell's law.

That is all.

It does not take a genius to know that 6,666 (and above) does not look obscured by the horizon.  The earth remains flat and there is nothing you can do to change my understanding of how light bends and how mirages actually work.  Stop running from the truth.  I know you have it in you to stand have courage about the way this "data" actually is...

What evidence do you have that the horizon is not thousands of feet.

Just a suggestion. I am just an amateur at photography. This is just an idea based on experience with infrared films, so I won't claim any expertise . ( I used Ektachrome Infrared film with a Wratten # 12  filter.  I don't know if Ektachrome Infrared film is still being produced or if processing is  available.)

Wouldn't the same photographs taken with infrared film eliminate the blue haze in the distance and make the mountains in the far distance stand out plainer ? Maybe that would be something for further investigation ?

Actually, UV filters are used to reduce haze, not IR filters.  Polarizing filters sometimes help too.