The Shipping Crate Experiment

Quote from: rabinoz on October 30, 2019, 06:00:34 PM

Quote from: John Davis on October 30, 2019, 12:51:29 PM

It is dark anywhere due to the obstruction of light. In this case, due to the fact that air is not transparent.

If "It is dark anywhere due to the obstruction of light. In this case, due to the fact that air is not transparent."

What is obstructing the light in these photos?

Sunset at Karumba on August 8, 2007 at 06:25:02 EAST with a 300 mm 35 mm equiv lens.


Sunset at Karumba on August 8, 2007 at 06:25:29 EAST with a 300 mm 35 mm equiv lens.


Sunset at Karumba on August 8, 2007 at 06:25:57 EAST with a 300 mm 35 mm equiv lens.

The sun seems to go from just under the "top half" visible to being entirely obscured in a matter of 55 seconds.
Hence in this case, it does not seem to be "due to the fact that air is not transparent".

Any ideas?

Your image links seem to come up broken to me.

I don't know the cause of your broken links because they work fine for me on four separate devices that use three separate links to the internet.
Just in case the problem continues I changed the image host here and in the original post to the one wise uses at https://resimyukle.xyz/.
I hope that solves the problem.

They are my photos so that's how I know the location and times so accurately. The camera did not have a GPS link so the "absolute" time might be a minute or so off but the time span is correct.
TimeandDate.com shows sunset at Karumba Point that day at 6:25 PM EAST.

So I suggest that you "It is dark anywhere due to the obstruction of light." part is correct but
"It is" "due to the fact that air is not transparent" does not fit this case of sunset at Karumba.

Quote from: markjo on October 31, 2019, 09:59:00 AM

Quote from: John Davis on October 31, 2019, 08:23:10 AM

Air is not transparent. You might be aware that light is scattered as it travels through a medium of air and so it cannot travel indefinitely through it.

What part of the definition of "transparent" stipulates that light must be able to travel unimpeded though it indefinitely?

The definition of transparent is that it allows light to travel through it. Feel free to substitute another word if you feel there's a better way to put it. I'm sure there is.

... So air becomes opaque enough to block sunlight, then shortly thereafter returns to transparent for us to see stars on the horizon?

Got it.

Quote from: markjo on October 31, 2019, 09:59:00 AM

Quote from: John Davis on October 31, 2019, 08:23:10 AM

Air is not transparent. You might be aware that light is scattered as it travels through a medium of air and so it cannot travel indefinitely through it.

What part of the definition of "transparent" stipulates that light must be able to travel unimpeded though it indefinitely?

The definition of transparent is that it allows light to travel through it. Feel free to substitute another word if you feel there's a better way to put it. I'm sure there is.

Are you being deliberately dense or is this yet another ruse in your near endless catalog of BS used to dodge getting pinned down on an answer?  Let's look at this a different way shall we?

So air is not transparent, according to you.  At what point, in your opinion, does air cease to be transparent?  At what distance and/or conditions is refraction sufficient to not just distort an image, but to cancel out completely a viewer's ability to see it, aided or unaided? 

The definition of transparent is that it allows light to travel through it. Feel free to substitute another word if you feel there's a better way to put it. I'm sure there is.

Since we can routinely see through several miles of atmosphere, I would think that it would be safe to say that it satisfies any reasonable definition of the word "transparent".  Since you're the one trying to make a point, perhaps you're the one who should find a better word.

Quote from: John Davis on November 01, 2019, 12:00:58 PM

Quote from: markjo on October 31, 2019, 09:59:00 AM

Quote from: John Davis on October 31, 2019, 08:23:10 AM

Air is not transparent. You might be aware that light is scattered as it travels through a medium of air and so it cannot travel indefinitely through it.

What part of the definition of "transparent" stipulates that light must be able to travel unimpeded though it indefinitely?

The definition of transparent is that it allows light to travel through it. Feel free to substitute another word if you feel there's a better way to put it. I'm sure there is.

... So air becomes opaque enough to block sunlight, then shortly thereafter returns to transparent for us to see stars on the horizon?

Got it.

Stop presenting strawman. I said nothing of the sort.

Quote from: John Davis on November 01, 2019, 12:00:58 PM

The definition of transparent is that it allows light to travel through it. Feel free to substitute another word if you feel there's a better way to put it. I'm sure there is.

Since we can routinely see through several miles of atmosphere, I would think that it would be safe to say that it satisfies any reasonable definition of the word "transparent".  Since you're the one trying to make a point, perhaps you're the one who should find a better word.

We don't see anything through the atmosphere as it doesn't exist.

Has it occured to you that the air around the sun might well be more dense than that of the air near the surface of terra?

At any rate, its a known fact that the flat earth sun acts as a spotlight. I don't see why presenting a reasonable enough mention of a possible cause is warranting this much discussion.

We don't see anything through the atmosphere as it doesn't exist.

That's a wild assumption.

Has it occured to you that the air around the sun might well be more dense than that of the air near the surface of terra?

And your evidence is what exactly?  Have you considered any implications an absurd idea like that might portend?  Why is the air near the sun more dense?  Again, my question that you have yet to answer, at what point does air become non-transparent?  At what density or distance?

At any rate, its a known fact that the flat earth sun acts as a spotlight.

Except running with that insane idea generates a number of paradoxical outcomes John.  A man of your intellect can easily arrive at those explainable conclusions without much assistance.  Do you need someone to list them so you can try to explain why those phenomena are not observed?

I don't see why presenting a reasonable enough mention of a possible cause is warranting this much discussion.

Because it isn't reasonable.  Making a baseless assertion that air density/distance is a factor in why we see the sunrise or set as we do or why certain objects are visible or not, without any factual evidence supporting it is why the discussion has arrived here.  If the FE Sun is 3000 miles away, then it seems logical that if we can see the Sun at that distance, then we should be able to see other objects that are at the same distance or closer without issue.  Especially when we have examples of the Sun being visible at the horizon and completely visible, then it should be no issue for us to view other objects distances of less than 3000 miles with little difficulty.  However, when I stand on the beach in Laguna Niguel and look west on a clear day, I cannot see Avalon on Catalina Island.  That is only 32 miles away.  I can see the island, but I cannot see the port of Avalon at the shore to that island.

Why is that John?

Quote from: John Davis on November 01, 2019, 03:47:12 PM

We don't see anything through the atmosphere as it doesn't exist.

That's a wild assumption.

Its an assumption to say the earth is a sphere, and that poisons any idea of an atmo"sphere".

Quote from: John Davis on November 01, 2019, 03:47:12 PM

Has it occured to you that the air around the sun might well be more dense than that of the air near the surface of terra?

And your evidence is what exactly?  Have you considered any implications an absurd idea like that might portend?  Why is the air near the sun more dense?  Again, my question that you have yet to answer, at what point does air become non-transparent?  At what density or distance?

So why can't I see stars during the day?

Quote from: John Davis on November 01, 2019, 03:47:12 PM

At any rate, its a known fact that the flat earth sun acts as a spotlight.

Except running with that insane idea generates a number of paradoxical outcomes John.  A man of your intellect can easily arrive at those explainable conclusions without much assistance.  Do you need someone to list them so you can try to explain why those phenomena are not observed?

It is clear to any thinking man that the earth is flat. The conjecture of a spotlight sun is well supported in peer reviewed research.

Quote from: John Davis on November 01, 2019, 03:47:12 PM

I don't see why presenting a reasonable enough mention of a possible cause is warranting this much discussion.

Because it isn't reasonable.  Making a baseless assertion that air density/distance is a factor in why we see the sunrise or set as we do or why certain objects are visible or not, without any factual evidence supporting it is why the discussion has arrived here.  If the FE Sun is 3000 miles away, then it seems logical that if we can see the Sun at that distance, then we should be able to see other objects that are at the same distance or closer without issue.  Especially when we have examples of the Sun being visible at the horizon and completely visible, then it should be no issue for us to view other objects distances of less than 3000 miles with little difficulty.  However, when I stand on the beach in Laguna Niguel and look west on a clear day, I cannot see Avalon on Catalina Island.  That is only 32 miles away.  I can see the island, but I cannot see the port of Avalon at the shore to that island.

Why is that John?

Perhaps you should try using a telescope. You know, I'm not put on this earth to spoon feed Earth: Not A Globe to angry globularists.

Its an assumption to say the earth is a sphere, and that poisons any idea of an atmo"sphere".

Okay.  If the term is that toxic to you, whatever.

So why can't I see stars during the day?

The gigantic ball of burning hydrogen tends to drown out weaker lights.

It is clear to any thinking man that the earth is flat. The conjecture of a spotlight sun is well supported in peer reviewed research.

To the first point, no, it is far from clear that the Earth is flat.  In fact, it requires some very complicated mental gymnastics to arrive at that conclusion.  Now, if you are a simpleton, and don't need much by way of logic, then it is a very easy thing to accept.  But like Weezer's Sweater all I need to do is hold this string as you walk away; it unravels under its own motion. 

To the second point, stop lying.  No really.  STOP LYING.  You shame REAL scientists across a spread of disciplines that are actually doing work to make the world a better place by claiming FE has anything published.  It was funny for about a minute, now its just showing your ass.

Perhaps you should try using a telescope. You know, I'm not put on this earth to spoon feed Earth: Not A Globe to angry globularists.

Aided or unaided, the Port of Avalon is not visible from the shore at Laguna Niguel.  No amount of magnification will bring it back into view.  This is a rhetorical question John.  I'm well aware of why it isn't visible but merely wanted to point out one of the several problems with your air density rubbish.  32 miles is nearly a factor of 100 less than what you claim the Earth's distance is to the Sun, yet Avalon is not visible.  Should it be?  According to your notion, yes.  In reality it isn't.  Care to advise as to what phenomena you believe is at work on this situation?

Quote from: John Davis on November 01, 2019, 04:33:16 PM

Its an assumption to say the earth is a sphere, and that poisons any idea of an atmo"sphere".

Okay.  If the term is that toxic to you, whatever.

Quote from: John Davis on November 01, 2019, 04:33:16 PM

So why can't I see stars during the day?

The gigantic ball of burning hydrogen tends to drown out weaker lights.

No, actually the so called "transparent" air scatters the light.

Its call Rayleigh scattering bud.

Quote from: John Davis on November 01, 2019, 04:33:16 PM

It is clear to any thinking man that the earth is flat. The conjecture of a spotlight sun is well supported in peer reviewed research.

To the first point, no, it is far from clear that the Earth is flat.  In fact, it requires some very complicated mental gymnastics to arrive at that conclusion.  Now, if you are a simpleton, and don't need much by way of logic, then it is a very easy thing to accept.  But like Weezer's Sweater all I need to do is hold this string as you walk away; it unravels under its own motion. 

To the second point, stop lying.  No really.  STOP LYING.  You shame REAL scientists across a spread of disciplines that are actually doing work to make the world a better place by claiming FE has anything published.  It was funny for about a minute, now its just showing your ass.

Quote from: John Davis on November 01, 2019, 04:33:16 PM

Perhaps you should try using a telescope. You know, I'm not put on this earth to spoon feed Earth: Not A Globe to angry globularists.

Aided or unaided, the Port of Avalon is not visible from the shore at Laguna Niguel.  No amount of magnification will bring it back into view.  This is a rhetorical question John.  I'm well aware of why it isn't visible but merely wanted to point out one of the several problems with your air density rubbish.  32 miles is nearly a factor of 100 less than what you claim the Earth's distance is to the Sun, yet Avalon is not visible.  Should it be?  According to your notion, yes.  In reality it isn't.  Care to advise as to what phenomena you believe is at work on this situation?

You are incorrect. A telescope will bring it back into view. See the peer reviewed results of the Bishop Experiment.

No, actually the so called "transparent" air scatters the light.

Its call Rayleigh scattering bud.

Yet another example of you being dishonest.  What causes Rayleigh scattering "bud"?  Oh, that's right, the gigantic ball of burning hydrogen.

You are incorrect. A telescope will bring it back into view. See the peer reviewed results of the Bishop Experiment.

Appealing to the echo chamber, eh John?  Tom Bishop's failed experiment in Monterrey does little to convince, seeing how he made the same mistake Rowbotham did and, shocker here, arrived at the same incorrect conclusion.  By the way, simply adding "Peer reviewed" to anything doesn't actually make it peer reviewed.  Care to provide a link to the peer review? 

Quote from: John Davis on November 01, 2019, 04:50:49 PM

No, actually the so called "transparent" air scatters the light.

Its call Rayleigh scattering bud.

Yet another example of you being dishonest.  What causes Rayleigh scattering "bud"?  Oh, that's right, the gigantic ball of burning hydrogen.

Air not being transparent causes rayleigh scattering. How is your ignorance me being dishonest? Please cease your baseless attacks against me as they are against the rules and I'm not above enforcing them.

Quote from: John Davis on November 01, 2019, 04:50:49 PM

You are incorrect. A telescope will bring it back into view. See the peer reviewed results of the Bishop Experiment.

Appealing to the echo chamber, eh John?  Tom Bishop's failed experiment in Monterrey does little to convince, seeing how he made the same mistake Rowbotham did and, shocker here, arrived at the same incorrect conclusion.  By the way, simply adding "Peer reviewed" to anything doesn't actually make it peer reviewed.  Care to provide a link to the peer review? 

Rowbotham never performed the Bishop experiment, hence the name. You sure are keen on inventing the history of the flat earth society while at the same time knowing nothing of it.

Quote from: Crutchwater on November 01, 2019, 03:12:32 PM

Quote from: John Davis on November 01, 2019, 12:00:58 PM

Quote from: markjo on October 31, 2019, 09:59:00 AM

Quote from: John Davis on October 31, 2019, 08:23:10 AM

Air is not transparent. You might be aware that light is scattered as it travels through a medium of air and so it cannot travel indefinitely through it.

What part of the definition of "transparent" stipulates that light must be able to travel unimpeded though it indefinitely?

The definition of transparent is that it allows light to travel through it. Feel free to substitute another word if you feel there's a better way to put it. I'm sure there is.

... So air becomes opaque enough to block sunlight, then shortly thereafter returns to transparent for us to see stars on the horizon?

Got it.

Stop presenting strawman. I said nothing of the sort.

You absolutely did!

You said "It is dark anywhere due to the obstruction of light. In this case, due to the fact that air is not transparent."

Which is not what you said I said.

Quote from: markjo on November 01, 2019, 03:25:48 PM

Since we can routinely see through several miles of atmosphere, I would think that it would be safe to say that it satisfies any reasonable definition of the word "transparent".  Since you're the one trying to make a point, perhaps you're the one who should find a better word.

We don't see anything through the atmosphere as it doesn't exist.

Has it occured to you that the air around the sun might well be more dense than that of the air near the surface of terra?
much discussion.

Let's change markjo's "Since we can routinely see through several miles of atmosphere"
 to "Since we can routinely see the sun and moon through hundreds of miles of atmosphere" - effectively about 200 miles anyway.

The full moon can be easily seen when a little above the horizon as in: Full Moon, January 21, 2019 at 19:11:37 EAST, Altitude 3.5° Azimuth 65°

And can be easily seen when just above the horizon as in: SUPER MOON CRUISE!!! TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 19th at 7.30 PM This is not my photo but I'm sure we've all seen this sort of full moon rising.

Whether the earth is flat or spherical the sun or moon would viewed through at least a couple of hundred miles of atmosphere.
Now, based on the sun's apparent magnitude of -26.7 and the moon's of -12.6, the intensity of light from the sun should be about 440,000 times that of a full moon.

Here's some entertaining reading on that from almost 160 years ago:
Comparison of the Light of the Sun and Moon Author(s): George P. Bond Source: Memoirs of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, New Series, Vol. 8, No. 1 (1861), pp. 287-298
Bond ended up claiming that, "Sunlight = 470 980 times the light of the mean Full Moon".

So if the sun is so much brighter than the moon how could the sun go from being fully visible to completely "obscured" over a period of only 2 minutes?

At any rate, its a known fact that the flat earth sun acts as a spotlight. I don't see why presenting a reasonable enough mention of a possible cause is warranting this much discussion.

So "its a known fact that the flat earth sun acts as a spotlight" is it? The 'Wiki" claims:

Spotlight effect
The Sun's area of light is limited to a circular area of light upon the earth much like the light of a lighthouse is limited to a finite circular area around it.

But, as seen below the Sun's area of light is never circular.

Sol, how can the pattern of the light from this "spotlight" change to match the pattern of light observed?
The patterns in the following video show how the shape of the pattern of the day-night areas on the flat-Earth to match that observed:

Changing shape of the Day and Night Areas on a flat-Earth
from: Day and Night Areas on a Flat Earth

Just how does the pattern this "spotlight sun" manage to make the required changes in shape throughout the year.

So why can't I see stars during the day?

Because the much brighter light from the sun scatters through the atmosphere washing out the much fainter stars.

It is clear to any thinking man that the earth is flat.

Quite the opposite.
All the available evidence points to a round Earth, not a flat one.
It is clear to any thinking person that Earth is round, not flat.

The conjecture of a spotlight sun is well supported in peer reviewed research.

By "peer reviewed research" do you mean wild claims spouted by FEers, or actual research?
Because the actual research shows the sun is a giant ball of plasma.

The only which appears to support a spotlight sun is the wild assumption that Earth is flat, which then needs some nonsense to stop the light from reaching everyone all the time.

Perhaps you should try using a telescope. You know, I'm not put on this earth to spoon feed Earth: Not A Globe to angry globularists.

The sheer difference between just before and just after sunrise is far too great for the atmosphere to be a cause.

If the sun was a spotlight it should vanish high in the sky. If it was the atmosphere being too thick, it would fade to a blur high in the sky, gradually growing fainter against the surrounding sky, until it is too faint and distorted to make out.

That does not match what is typically observed. Instead what is observed is the sun appear to set beyond the horizon, with Earth obstructing the view.

Which is not what you said I said.

Explain how it could be interpreted any other way?

No, actually the so called "transparent" air scatters the light.

How far does one need to see through a medium for it to fit your definition of transparent?

Rowbotham never performed the Bishop experiment, hence the name.

To be fair, Tom never provided enough documentation to adequately prove that he ever performed the Bishop experiment either.

Air not being transparent causes rayleigh scattering. How is your ignorance me being dishonest? Please cease your baseless attacks against me as they are against the rules and I'm not above enforcing them.

Don't threaten me with a good time.

Rowbotham never performed the Bishop experiment, hence the name. You sure are keen on inventing the history of the flat earth society while at the same time knowing nothing of it.

The Bishop experiment was carried out in Monterrey, CA, and attempted to prove the Earth is flat by using a telescope to see the lighthouse across the bay in Santa Cruz, CA.  IT IS THE SAME EXPERIMENT.  The only difference is the distance and location.  The same flaw in Rowbotham's experiment was not accounted for in Bishop's, calculating for refraction, and both claimed victory without understanding all of the variables involved. 

Mr. Davis, I'm well aware of your nonsense.

Quote from: John Davis on November 01, 2019, 05:18:47 PM

Rowbotham never performed the Bishop experiment, hence the name.

To be fair, Tom never provided enough documentation to adequately prove that he ever performed the Bishop experiment either.

I recall him doing so beyond a reasonable doubt. Perhaps your reasonable doubt is higher than mine, but given my skepticism of a great many things and people here, I doubt it.

Quote from: John Davis on November 01, 2019, 05:18:47 PM

Air not being transparent causes rayleigh scattering. How is your ignorance me being dishonest? Please cease your baseless attacks against me as they are against the rules and I'm not above enforcing them.

Don't threaten me with a good time.

Quote from: John Davis on November 01, 2019, 05:18:47 PM

Rowbotham never performed the Bishop experiment, hence the name. You sure are keen on inventing the history of the flat earth society while at the same time knowing nothing of it.

The Bishop experiment was carried out in Monterrey, CA, and attempted to prove the Earth is flat by using a telescope to see the lighthouse across the bay in Santa Cruz, CA.  IT IS THE SAME EXPERIMENT.  The only difference is the distance and location.  The same flaw in Rowbotham's experiment was not accounted for in Bishop's, calculating for refraction, and both claimed victory without understanding all of the variables involved. 

Mr. Davis, I'm well aware of your nonsense.

Oh okay. I'm sure you can explain then how refraction would cause a telescope to remove or add said refraction?

Also his experiment has nothing to do with refraction and it's not even relevant.

Quote from: markjo on November 01, 2019, 08:08:59 PM

Quote from: John Davis on November 01, 2019, 05:18:47 PM

Rowbotham never performed the Bishop experiment, hence the name.

To be fair, Tom never provided enough documentation to adequately prove that he ever performed the Bishop experiment either.

I recall him doing so beyond a reasonable doubt. Perhaps your reasonable doubt is higher than mine, but given my skepticism of a great many things and people here, I doubt it.

I’m sure the Bishop experiment was carried out to similar high standards as the Shipping Crate Experiment.

Do you feel its fair to Bishop to make such a judgement? To myself?

Do you feel its fair to Bishop to make such a judgement? To myself?

You tell me.  I’ve never seen Tom’s results.

But you’re the one talking up your high level of scientific sceptism on same the thread where you proposed a silly “experiment” to allegedly prove a flat earth.  Which doesn’t make for a very convincing argument.

If you've never seen his results, then clearly it is not a fair judgement.

I recall him doing so beyond a reasonable doubt. Perhaps your reasonable doubt is higher than mine, but given my skepticism of a great many things and people here, I doubt it.

If that was the case you would be quite sceptical of him as well.
Considering how you reject space travel as fake, even with all the evidence of it, that would mean you would never find that anyone has proven they have done something in reality beyond a reasonable doubt.

But could you clarify, just what is this "Bishop" experiment you refer to?
What is the evidence he provided for doing it?

If you've never seen his results, then clearly it is not a fair judgement.

Perhaps you missed my smiley? 

Fine, if you want to turn this nonsense thread into a serious discussion, stump up the details of the experiment and I’ll give it a fair judgement.

Also his experiment has nothing to do with refraction and it's not even relevant.

Anyone who understands how atmospheric refractive phenomena work knows why refraction is very relevant.

We don't see anything through the atmosphere as it doesn't exist.

Has it occured to you that the air around the sun might well be more dense than that of the air near the surface of terra?

Depends on how you define 'air'. If you are referring to the gas cocktail that surrounds Earth, then no. Because that would be impossible. However, if you are referring to an atmosphere, then Yes, the Sun has one and it is much less dense than Earth's atmosphere.

At any rate, its a known fact that the flat earth sun acts as a spotlight. I don't see why presenting a reasonable enough mention of a possible cause is warranting this much discussion.

It's not known because it's not a fact. It's also impossible. Due to the amount of energy the Sun releases, 'Spotlight Sun' would eventually become 'Rocket Sun'.